








NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materials! The Minimum Fee for 
each Lost Book is $50.00. 


The person charging this material is responsible for 
its return to the library from which it was withdrawn 
on or before the Latest Date stamped below. 

Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli- 


nary action and may result in dismissal from the University. 
To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 





L161—O-1096 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2021 with funding from 
University of Illinois Uroana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/jointnmandatescheOOamer 


4, : € 
\ Avy, pw i) 
yy i "oy / 
sf ify 


LU VAI 


The Joint Mandate 
scheme ; 


A Turkish Empire Under 
American Protection 


ye 


An American joint mandate for Constantinople, 
Anatolia, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbeijan will 
serve to 


I. Extend and consolidate the rule of the Turks and 
promote Pan-Turanianism ; 


II. Kill the Armenian race and nationality ; 
III. Smother Christianity in the Near East; and 


IV. Bring the forces of Mohammed under the influence 
of 24,000,000 Turanians preparatory to an eventual 
inevitable conflict between Islam and Christendom. 


Articles by 


JAMES W. GERARD—‘“A Turkish ‘Mandate’— 
Pan-Turanianism and Pan-Islamism Under 
American Protection.” 

GEN. BAGRATUNI—“Pan-Turanianism—a Seri- 
ous Menace to the Peace of the World.” 

HENRY W. JESSUP—“American Aid to Armenia 
Without a Mandate.” 

L. P. CHAMBERS—“Armenia as a Barrier in the 
Way of Pan-Turanianism.” 

W. D. P. BLISS—“A Free All-Armenia vs. 
Turanian-Bolsheviki Alliance.” 


»VAHAN CARDASHIAN—‘“A Turkish Scheme.” 





C400q S14} UL BOWIE SluNjeIse “usr 2929) “s0eI ULTUOUTIY 94} JO WONTUTUTID}Xa OY} pazdulezze ‘eIsy [e13]UaT 0} a[douTJUEJsUOD Woz SuIYDIEI3s aIe1G 


‘elusmIy Aq e1jojeuy 
‘908s Aq SUBIULIN], s1e eloyeuy jo syn], sq] 


yshjiny, & Zurpunoy jo suvow e se “elusuIy puotaq sueTULIN], MO]IAJ It9y4} YUM VOKOUNf & Joyo 0} JapIO UI ‘eTOJeUY JO SHINE WL 
JO UsWsUIy Itoy} WoOIZ poyeredes o1e OYM ABHIN], JO apisyno suviueiny, 194j0 Q00‘000'6I Be soy 


dVAN NVINVYUNL-NVd 














ee ! SAMILNY et 4 


3 .000 00¢ P SHIEZN 


000'00¢L vivvoduenent SCNVIWOMYAL 






000 000 ‘9 00000000 ‘ SISSIOULY 


00000Gf |. =4-~<e= . 'SUIMHSVE 





: { WHIONESYNWAN 

0000009 XXXXXK XK SYVLY VL 

900000: 900000, SHYAL 
SNVINVUNAL 


iWley 
y 
ee 





° 
7 6 abinquaig ° 
~~ “ S00 906 c - ol 
> 1Q)s+* Pvy, Peeco cco 
= hn VN Fy “tp, 
7 QOD 
a eae o~—t_ As) 
(Se Fe << 
NE WPL ie 


*x x x tet) 


i aw UDJNvy 4 


pu%" 


——<—_——S 





‘000°00€ ‘SUOrsITaY 4194309 £000‘00Z ‘spiny, ‘Q00‘O0E ‘s1e1IeT, {000‘00$ ‘SueIsI9g ‘sqeIy ‘suBISSEOIID ‘syIN] 
£000‘00S ‘suenstiqDd J9e4IO £000‘00S‘Z ‘SUBIUSUIIW :SMOT[OJ Se AjTo}EUIxOIdde poprlaIp ‘QOO‘O0ES*h ‘uoje[ndog ‘ui “bs OOO'SEI Puke QOOSSZTI UseMJoq ‘VIIW “6I6I ‘9Z 
Aieniga,y uo ‘stieq Ul sduatazuoD edeag 9Y} 0} ViuswIYy [B1IsoJUT JO UOT}eESI[9q ay} Aq podjussaid A][VIoOWjO UNpueIOWs; e& JO SUII9} dy} 0} SuIPIODDy 


—dVW aHL NO UVaAddVaA TIIM LI SV VINANUV 





The American Committee for the 
Independence of Armenia 


EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 
James W. Gerard, Chairman 


Charles Evans Hughes 
Elihu Root 

Henry Cabot Lodge 
John Sharp Williams 


Alfred E. Smith 

Frederic Courtland Penfield 
Charles W. Eliot 

Cleveland H. Dodge 


GENERAL COMMITTEE 
Charles Evans Hughes, Honorary Chairman 
James W. Gerard, Chairman 


William Jennings Bryan 
Alton B. Parker 

Elihu Root 

Henry Cabot Lodge 

John Sharp Williams 
Charles S. Thomas 
Lyman Abbott 

Gov. Bartlett, N. H. 
Tames ey Barton 

Gov. Beeckman, R. I. 
Alice Stone Blackwell 
Charles J. Bonaparte 
Gov. Boyle, Nev. 
Nicholas Murray Butler 
Gov. Campbell, Ariz. 
Gov. Carey, Wyo. 

(FOV GU atte as 

Gov. Cooper, S. C. 

Gov. Cox, Ohio 

Charles Stewart Davison 
Rt. Rev. J. H. Darlington 
Cleveland H. Dodge 
Gov. Dorsey, Ga. 
Charles W. Eliot 

Rt. Rev. William F. Faber 
Admiral Bradley A. Fiske 
Lindley M. Garrison 
James Cardinal Gibbons 
Martin H. Glynn 

Samuel Gompers 
Madison Grant 

Lloyd C. Griscom 

Goy. Harding, Iowa 

Gov. Harrington, Md. 
Albert Bushnell Hart 
Sara Duryea Hazen 
Myron T. Herrick 


John Grier Hibben 

Gov. Holcomb, Conn. 
Hamilton Holt 

George A. Hurd 

Richard M. Hurd 

Henry W. Jessup 

Robert Ellis Jones 

Gov. Larrazolo, N. Mex. 
Gov. Lister, Wash. 
Edward C. Little 

Julian W. Mack 

Norman E. Mack 
William T. Manning 
Elizabeth Marbury 

Rt. Rev. Wm. H. Moreland 
Gov. Norbeck, S. Dak. 
Frederic C. Penfield 
George Haven Putnam 
Rt. Rev. P. N. Rhinelander 
Ernest W. Riggs 

Wm. Henry Roberts 
Gov. Robertson, Okla. 
Jacob G. Schurman 

Gov. -oniths. Ne oy 

Gov. Sproul ea: 

Oscar S. Straus 

Rt. Rev. A. C. Thompson 
Gov. Townsend, Jr., Del. 
Rt, ReysB. D: “Tucker 

Rt Rev. Wm. W. Webb 
Benjamin Ide Wheeler 
Everett P. Wheeler 

Rt. Rev. J. R. Winchester 
Stephen S. Wise 

Gov. Withycombe, Ore. 
Gov. Yager, Porto Rico 


Lhe following memorandum was telegraphed to the Presi- 
dent on December 18, 1910: 


TO THE PRESIDENT, 
Washington, D. C. 


‘There is now a movement afoot designed to have 
America accept mandates in the Near East. We do 
not believe that the American people can be fairly 
asked to assume so hazardous a responsibility, or that 
they should assume an obligation under which the 
Turks will become the principal beneficiaries, with 
the unavoidable result that they will gain in strength 
and, at the termination of the term of our mandate, 
resume their national pastime of murder and rapine. 
We are confident that you cannot possibly sympathize 
with an arrangement that is advocated by the Turks 
themselves,—an arrangement which will offer them 
a favorable opportunity to promote their Pan- 
Turanian ambition, for the furtherance of which they 
entered the war and, as a preliminary step in their 
programme, attempted the extermination of the 
Armenian people. A joint mandate establishes a link 
between the Turks of Constantinople and of Anatolia, 
the ‘Tartars of the Caucasus and the Turkomans, 
Uzbeks, Sarts, Bashkirs, Kirghisses and other Tura- 
nians beyond the Caspian, and thus plays into the 
hands of the Young Turks in their Pan-Turanian 
policy. We are now being asked to enable the 
Turks to achieve under our protection that which 
they failed to attain through the war. We feel that 
even the discussion of a mandate will postpone the 
adoption of what we believe should be our attitude 
toward Armenia. 

Representative American opinion has already ex- 
pressed itself with convincing emphasis in favor of 
the creation of an Armenian State that will unite 
Ararat with Cilicia and which alone can become an 
effective barrier against the Pan-Turanian am- 
bition of the Turks of Anatolia. We believe the 


5 


American people will gladly sanction America’s ex- 
tending necessary aid to Armenia during her for- 
mative period. We therefore respectfully ask that 
the Administration declare itself in favor of Ameri- 
ca’s extending direct aid to Armenia; to that end, 
formulate a definite continuing policy, and, as a 
preliminary step in that direction, recognize at 
once the Armenian Republic. This recognition 
will enable the Armenian government to borrow 
the necessary funds to meet the most pressing 
needs of its starving people, and will also be a 
practical step toward the creation of a united 
Armenia.” 


(Signed) JAMES W. GERARD 
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES 
ALTON B. PARKER 
ELIHU Root 
FREDERIC COURTLAND PENFIELD 
NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER 
JACOB GOULD SCHURMAN 
JOHN GRIER HIBBEN 
PHILIP N. RHINELANDER 
BRADLEY A. FISKE 





Ex-President Eliot of Harvard, says: 


“T hope America will help Armenia to organize a 
stable and independent government by lending her all 
necessary means.” 


A TURKISH “MANDATE” 
Pan-Turanianism and Pan-Islamism Under 


American Protection 


By JAMES W. GERARD 


IXx-Ambassador to Germany 


* KOK 


The foundation of the international policy of the late 
Abd-ul-Hamid was based on the influence that he sought to 
exercise over the Islamic world. He became obsessed with 
the idea that if he could command the obedience of 200,000,- 
000 Moslems under his sceptre, then the maintenance of his 
tottering throne could be made secure as against European 
encroachments. 

So, he became the foremost Pan-Islamist of his time. 
But he did not succeed in his ultimate purpose. 

The Young Turks saw the reason for the failure of the 
policy of Pan-Islamism pursued by Hamid. ‘They realized 
that about five million Turks in the Turkish Empire could 
not possibly dominate the minds and hearts of the Islamic 
world. So, they thought that the first thing for them to do 
would be to effect a junction with their kinsmen,—the Tar- 
tars, Turkomans, Bashkirs, Uzbeks, Sarts and Kirghisses in 
the Caucasus and beyond the Caspian,—since all these tribes 
or races, like the Turks themselves, trace their origin to the 
Turanian stock. They believed that if they could accomplish 
that end, then there would be a homogeneous Turanian unit 
numbering about 24,000,000, and then they could set out to 
take up the Pan-Islamic policy of Abd-ul-Hamid. But the 
Turks of Anatolia were separated from their kinsmen of the 
Caucasus and the Trans-Caspian by the Armenians. ‘There 
fore, it was necessary for the Turks to get rid of the Ar- 
menians, as a preliminary step in the direction of pushing 
ahead their policy of Pan-Turanianism. 

Thus, the Young Turks entered the war with the specific 
purpose of establishing a connecting link between them- 
selves and the Tartars and other Turanians of the Caucasus 
and ‘I'rans-Caspian and of laying the foundation of a Turan- 


7 


ian Empire that would extend from the Golden Horn to 
Central Asia. 

The Turks failed in attaining their objective through the 
war, because they were unable to get rid of the Armenians 
as thoroughly as they expected they would. They did 
destroy or disperse the majority of Turkish Armenians, but 
they were held up for over six months by Russian Arme- 
nians, and the ensuing armistice hindered the further oper- 
ation of their Pan-Turanian scheme. 


Weare now being asked to enable the Turks to 
achieve under our protection that which they failed 
to attain through the war. 


That is what a joint mandate by America for the major 
portion of the former Turkish Empire and of the Transcau- 
casus means. The Turks are heartily and extremely anxious 
that America should accept such a mandate. They hope that 
through American capital and constructive genius they will 
be. educated and reorganized in the course’ of twenueen 
thirty years, when, through the sympathy and support of 
Islam, they will be sufficiently strong to defy the Christian 
world. 

A joint mandate for the regions above indicated may be 
of some practical interest to certain financiers and ambitious 
politicians. Such an arrangement may also suggest some 
fascinating opportunity for missionaries to convert the 
Turks or other Islamic races. But it ought not to be for- 
gotten by our good American missionary friends that as 
long as a Turkish political unit exists, so long will it be well 
nigh impossible to make inroads into the religion of the 
Turk,—a religion which the Turk proposes to use as an in- 
strument for the promotion of his political ambitions. 


An American joint mandate, such as the one that 
is being advocated, will serve to extend and con- 
solidate the rule of the Turks and promote Pan- 
Turanianism; kill the Armenian race and nation- 
ality; smother Christianity in the Near East, and 
bring the forces of Mohammed under the influence 
of 24,000,000 or more Turanians preparatory to an 
eventual inevitable conflict between Islam and 
Christendom. 


A joint mandate is absolutely and clearly a scheme in 
the interest and for the benefit of the Turks and only of the 
turks. © 

8 


It has been asserted by certain persons that the creation 
of an Armenian State is impracticable. The creation of an 
Armenian State will be impracticable if we confine that 
State only to the mountainous district of Armenia; but when 
we bring the boundaries of that State down to the Medi- 
terranean, as we must, then Armenia will be self-sufficient 
and self-supporting. That the Turks have destroyed one- 
half out of the million and a half Armenians who lived in 
Turkish Armenia is a gruesome fact; but we shall not permit 
the Turks to be benefited by a majority gained by murder. 

When some people talk of the impracticability of creat- 
ing an Armenian State they mean this: The Turks have al- 
ready destroyed one-half and driven from their homes the 
other half of the Armenian population of Turkish Armenia. 
So, we should recognize the condition that the Turks have 
created; compensate the Turks by turning Turkish Armenia 
over to them; confine the Armenians to Russian Armenia, 
which alone cannot, of course, become a self-sufficient eco- 
nomic bloc, and, therefore, no Armenian State can or should 
be created. 


Armenia, extending from the Black Sea to the 
Mediterranean, separates the Turks of Anatolia from 
their kinsmen of the Caucasus and Trans-Caspian, 
and thus puts an end to a movement which 1s plainly 
dangerous to the peace of the world. Thenit follows 
that, 1f there were no Armenia, the interest of Chris- 
tian civilization would require that one should be 
created. 


It shall-be the task of America, and for that matter of 
Christendom, to permit the Armenian refugees to get back 
to their homes; offer about a million Armenians in other 
countries to return to the land of their forefathers, and 
rescue about two hundred thousand Armenian women and 
children who are now living a life of misery and shame in 
the harems of the Turks and of the Kurds. These things 
can be done, if America were to lend moral and economic aid 
to Armenia. That done, the Armenians will constitute over 
sixty per cent. of the population of Armenia to be. 


When we recall the fact that the Turks in Turkey 
were never over twenty-five per cent. of the popula- 
tion of the Turkish Empire, then we must conclude 
that the Armenians, in point of numbers, will estab- 


9 


lish a satisfactory claim to the possession of their own 


land. 


The Armenians ask America to aid them during their 
formative period. They want us to lend them economic aid, 
and civil and military advisory aid, and also about one regi- 
ment of American troops. The Armenian government can 
easily create a force of 50,000 trained men (that govern- 
ment now has 18,000 men under arms), if we supply neces- 
sary equipment. Iam informed that this force will be ample 
for the occupation of the non-occupied parts of Armenia. 
The small American contingent that is required is intended 
to accompany the Armenian army of occupation, so that the 
Turks and the Kurds may know that the Armenians are en- 
gaged in a legitimate errand by the authority of the Peace 
Conference and that they do not mean to hurt them, and 
also that they may know that America is back of Armenia, so 
that no unnecessary resistence may be offered, if any. 

The Armenians now have a government in northern Ar- 
menia, known as the Republic of Armenia. That government 
has been in existence now for over eighteen months. It is not, 
of course, as efficient a machine as it ought to be; bivgeg 
view of the most difficult conditions under which it has been 
brought into being, it would be unfair to expect of it a 
ereater measure of stability and efficiency. A nation whose 
members are forced to live on a quarter of a pound of 
bread per day can hardly be expected to be very efficient. 

That the Armenians possess sufficient moral fitness for 
self-rule has never been seriously questioned. According to 
districts, the rate of literacy among the Armenians ranges 
from 35% to 75%. ‘The Armenians are the best educated 
people in the Near East and South-Kastern Europe. I un- 
derstand that there were, in 1914, six thousand Armenian 
students in the colleges and universities of Russia alone, and 
that in 1914 there were over 15,000 Armenians in Russia 
who had received a college or university education. The 
Armenians in Russia number about 2,000,000. 

I believe that America will aid Armenia to become a free 
and independent nation. I also believe that the American 
people will have nothing to do with a proposition under 
which the murderous Turks are to share with the survivors 
of their victims the advantages of American aid and efforts. 


10 


PLEDGES MADE TO ARMENIA BY THE STATESMEN 
AND LEADERS OF THE ALLIED AND 
ASSOCIATED POWERS. 


President Wilson, in his message of January 8, 1918, con- 
ceded to Armenia the right to “fullest autonomy.” 


a 


Mr. Lloyd George, on January 5, 1918, solemnly declared 
in the House of Commons that the recognition of the sepa- 
rate condition of Armenia shall constitute one of the war 
aims of Great Britain. 7 

te Sa ee 

Mr. Balfour, replying to an interpellation by Mr. Ramsay 
MacDonald in the House of Commons on July I1th, 1918, 
said: 

“His Majesty's Government is following with earnest 
sympathy and admiration the gallant resistance of the 
Armenians (in the Caucasus) in defence of their liberties 
and honour. I would refer the Honorable Member to the 
public statements made by leading statesmen among the 


Allied Powers in favor of a settlement (of the Armenian 
Case) upon the principle of self-determination.”’ 


RS. aK 


M. Clemenceau, by a letter dated July, 1918, and ad- 
dressed to the Armenian National Delegation, Paris, said: 


“France, the victim of the most unjust of aggressions, 
has included in her peace terms the liberation of oppressed 
nations. 


“The spirit of self-abnegation of the Armenians, their 
loyalty towards the Allies, their contributions to the For- 
eign Legion, to the Caucasian front, and to the Oriental 
Legion have strengthened the ties that connect them with 
France. 


“T am happy to confirm to you that the government of 
the Republic, like that of Great Britain, has not ceased to 
place the Armenian nation among the peoples whose fate 
the Allies intend to settle according to the supreme laws 
of Humanity and Justice.” 


* KOK 


11 


Baron Sonino, Italian Foreign Minister, on February 8, 
1919, cabled Mr. Gerard, Chairman, The American Commit- 
tee for the Independence of Armenia, that, 

“I am very happy of the occasion offered me to express 
once more the sentiments of heartfelt sympathy with which 


the Royal Government follows the constant and noble 
efforts of Armenia for her independence and unity. 


* KOK 


On December 10, 1918, Senator Lodge offered a 
resolution in the Senate in favor of the independence 
of Armenia, comprising Russian Armenia, Persian 
Armenia, and Turkish Armenia, including Cilicia. 
Vhis resolution was reoffered by him in May, IgIgQ, 
and it has been re-embodied in the resolution of Sen- 


ator Williams, dated Sept. 9, TOTO. 
ee ae: 


Ata banquet held under the auspices of the Amer- 
ican Committee for the Independence of Armenia, 
on February 8, IQ1Q, a representative American au- 
dience, after having heard Mr. Justice Hughes, Ex- 
Secretary Bryan, and Ex-Ambassador Gerard, 
adopted the resolution of Senator Lodge as the plat- 
form of the American Committee. 


a 


On March 3, 1919, The American Committee For The 
Independence Of Armenia presented to President Wilson 
two sets of printed petitions, signed by Twenty thousand 
Ministers, Rectors and Priests; 85 Bishops; 40 Governers of 
the States and 250 College and University Presidents, 
whereby the petitioners respectfully asked the President 


“to do your utmost to secure and insure the Inde- 
pendence of Armenia, including the Six Vilayets, 
Cilicia and the littoral of Trebizonde in Turkish 
Armenia; Russian Armenia and Persian Armenia; 
to exert your great influence to the end that the 
Peace Conference may make requisite arrange- 
ments for helping Armenia to establish an inde- 
pendent Republic, and to obtain adequate repara- 
tion for the terrible losses the Armenian people 
have suffered during the war.” 


x 1 


PAN-TURANIANISM—A SERIOUS MENACE TO THE 
PEACE OF THE WORLD 


By MAJOR-GENERAL BAGRATUNI 


Former Chief of Russian Army Intelligence Service of Turkestan; 
Former Commander-in-Chief of the Petrograd Military District, etc. 


* OK ok 


In 1914, a society was organized in Constantinople, styled 
as the Yeni-Turan Society (meaning, New Turan), of which 
Enver Pasha, the then Turkish Minister of War, became 
President. The Turks of Constantinople and of Anatolia 
belong to the Turanian branch of the human family who mi- 
grated from Central Asia to their present habitat during the 
10th, 11th, and succeeding centuries. The purpose of the 
Yeni-Turan Society was to establish a connecting link be- 
tween the Turanians of Anatolia and Constantinople and 
those of the Caucasus and the T'ranscaspian, and to found a 
Turkish State, stretching from Thrace to Central Asia, with 
its capital at Constantinople. The Young Turks earnestly 
started the Pan-Turanian movement in 1908, at the time of 
their accession to power, when I had occasion to order the ar- 
rest of several of their emessaries from Constantinople, who 
were conducting Pan-Turanian propaganda in Turkestan. 

The Turanians number about 24,000,000, of whom 
19,000,000 live outside the boundaries of the former Turk- 
ish Kmpire. There are seven principal distinct branches of 
them with minor sub-branches. ‘They are to be found 
in patches, or connecting blocks, in Thrace, Anatolia, 
the Transcaucasus, northern Persia, the western, northern, 
and northwestern coasts of the Caspian, and beyond the 
Caspian, in the regions of Orenburg, Samara, Kazan, Ufa, 
and within the boundaries of Chinese Turkestan and the 
northern frontiers of India. 


The titles, the habitat and the estimated numbers of the 
principal Turanian races are indicated below: 
lee LURKS: 


In Constantinople region, in Anatolia, with consid- 


13 


erable numbers in parts of Armenia and southern 
CAUCASUS cla. bars Wien actt eine eek et ne ee oe re eee 5,000,000 
2. TARTARS, KUMUKS and NOGHAI: 


In northern Persia, eastern Transcaucasus, centered 
at Baku, and northwestern coast of the Caspian, and 


inv Ural-Voleavrecigns s.% ccna 5,000,000 
3. BASHKIRS: 
Inthe region oft Astrakhan-and south ot Uta... 1,500,000 


4. TURKOMANS: 


Along the eastern coast of the Caspian, around Aral 
Sea, in the region of Khiva and northwestern part 


Of Persia es oh0 ah eee ee ee er eee ey ene 1,200,000 


5. UZBEKS and SARTS: 

In the regions of Khiva, Bokhara and Tashkend, and 

spread over as tar as Pamir, northern frontier of 

India ‘and: western. @hind 35 ee 3,500,000 
6. KIRGHISSES: 


In northwestern Turkestan. They constitute a link 
between the Tartars of Ufa, the Bashkirs of As- 
trakhan, the Turkomans of the eastern coast of the 
Caspian, the Uzbeks and the Sarts of Tashkend and 
the Kashgarlyks and the Tarantchys of China...... 6,000,000 


7. KASHGARLYKS and TARANTCHYS and others: 
They are the two principal Turanian races in western 


CoN cine Sic on ak ake ee oa eae Rese chorea, ee ce eee 2,000,000 


All these races trace their origin to the luranianestoces 
they speak allied languages or dialects, and profess Moham- 
medanism. 

If we permit the Turks of Constantinople and of Ana- 
tolia, who initiated and direct the Pan-Turanian movement, 
to establish a connecting link with their kinsmen beyond Ar- 
menia, then they will have no serious difficulty in building 
up a homogeneous Turanian State, and later in commanding 
the sympathy and support of the Islamic world, particularly 
of the 67,000,000 or more Moslems of India. Possibly the 
only two Islamic nations that cannot be won over by them 
are the Persians and the Arabs of Arabia. 

The Young Turks entered the war for the purpose of 
pushing their Pan-Turanian ambition to a successful conclu- 
sion, and, therefore, attempted to exterminate the Armenian 
people who stood in the way of their objective. They failed. 
But they have not given up that scheme. There is only one 
way by which Pan-Turanianism, as it is understood by the 


14 


Young Turks, can be gotten rid of. That can be done by 
separating the Turks of Anatolia from the Turanians of the 
Caucasus and beyond the Caspian. 


An Armenian State, stretching from the Black Sea to the 
Mediterranean, can become that separating barrier. There- 
fore, I agree with Ambassador Gerard that, if there were no 
Armenia, the interest of western civilization would demand 
that one should be created. 


If the Armenians are given a little initial help, they can 
successfully defend the frontier of western civilization 
against the schemes of Asiatic marauders. I am acquainted 
with all the races and nationalities of the near and middle 
east, and I can say that the Armenian makes a better soldier 
than the men of any race in those regions. The Turanians, 
the Persians, the Kurds and others have considerable power 
of physical endurance, but they lack the dash, the skill, the 
discipline and the patriotic idealism of the Armenian soldicr, 
who is the equal of the best Aryan soldier. 


Benjamin Ide Wheeler, President, University of Califor- 
nia, Says: 

“T think that the United States ought to assume 
the care and oversight of Armenta’s interest 1f she 
does it for any nation. The intervention need not be 
expected to last many years. The Armenians under- 
stand self-government and will adjust themselves to 
the modern demands thereof very quickly. We know 
them as a people better, probably, than any other 
Eastern stock, and we have occasion to sympathize 
with them and the Greeks who are in like estate.” 


ee 


CILICIA—THE LUNGS OF ARMENIA 


Cilicia is the Mediterranean outlet of Armenia. Under 
the provisions of the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot Compact of 
1916, Cilicia was allotted to France. In 1917, following the 
defection of Russia and the entry of America into the war, 
the Armenians, in view of the repeated declarations made by 
the statesmen and leaders of the Allied and Associated Pow- 
ers in favor of the principle of self-determination of peoples, 
set themselves to the task of lending as much military assist- 
ance to the Allied arms as it lay within their power. Itisa 
fact of common knowledge that the Armenians of Russian 
Armenia took over the Caucasus front in the winter of 1917 
and fought the advancing Turks for over five months. And 
the Armenians in foreign countries organized volunteer bat- 
talions, of which they placed eight at the disposal of France 
in Palestine. The only other troops France had under her 
flag in Palestine were about 300 Syrians and a battalion of 
Algerians. The Armenians fought under the supreme com- 
mand of General Allenby, and according to his testimony, 
took a leading part in the victory of Allenby over the Turks. 
These troops occupied the coast of Lebanon for France, and 
they also occupied Cilicia. The French commanders who led 
the Armenians to Cilicia told them that they were on their 
way to the redemption of their fatherland. But now that the 
war is over, a great many Frenchmen feel that the cotton 
fields and the iron ores of Cilicia ought not to pass out of the 
hands of France. Also, some people think that the Arme- 
nians have been terribly reduced in numbers, and that, there- 
fore, it would be best for them that Cilicia be not made a part 
of Armenia. The Armenians object to this line of reasoning 
on practical grounds, which may be summarized as follows: 


1. Cilicia is about 15,000 square miles in area, or it con- 
stitutes about one-eighth part of Armenia. 


If the seven-eighths are not beyond the capacity of the 
Armenians to carry, an additional one-eighth part would 
not too heavily weigh on them. Cilicia has today a popu- 
lation of 415,000, out of which about 200,000 are Arme- 
nians, 95,000 Moslems, and the balance other elements. 
Possibly not 1,000 out of these 200,000 Armenians would 


16 


move out of Cilicia, if Cilicia were to be detached from 
Armenia. If Cilicia were to be detached from Armenia, 
several hundred thousand Armenians, who would other- 
wise immigrate into Armenia from foreign countries, 
would remain where they now are. If Cilicia were to be 
detached from Armenia, a considerable number of Arme- 
nians who are now in the interior of Armenia will move 
to Cilicia. Thus, the severance of Cilicia from Armenia 
will be a deterrent factor to the emigration to Armenia 
of hundreds of thousands of Armenians who are now in 
foreign countries. 


2. Cilicia is the essential economic artery of Armenia.* 


Armenia major is surrounded on all sides by Tartars, 
Persians, Arabs and Turks and Cilicia offers Armenia the 
only outlet through which she can establish direct contact 
with the civilized world. 


3. Cilicia is historically an integral part of Armenia. 


Over 3,300 years ago, when the Armenians first immi- 
erated into Asia Minor from their original home in South- 
eastern Europe, they lived for several hundred years in 
Northern Cilicia. Again, when they lost the kingdom of 
Armenia Major in the eleventh century, they returned to 
Cilicia, and there they established and maintained the 
Kingdom of Lesser Armenia or Cilicia from 1080-1375. 
During the mediaeval ages, the ten harbors of this king- 
dom were among the most renowned in the Mediter- 
ranean, and.the Gulf of Alexandretta and its adjacent 
waters were known as the Sea of Armenia. This king- 
dom became the base and the ally of the Crusaders. Fol- 
lowing the downfall of all of the five States, which the 
Crusaders had founded in the East, Lesser Armenia, sin- 
ele-handed, fought and retarded the westerly advance of 
the Mameluke and the Turko-Tartar, for a period of 85 


years.} 


* Armenia should include the Russian and Turkish Armenias, with 
outlets at Trebizonde and on the Mediterranean, in Cilicia, the ancient 
home of Armenia. Without Cilicia, Armenia will be like a man without 
a pair of lungs—will be asphyxiated.—I‘rom an editorial headed “The 
Passing of Turkey,” in The Evening Post, N. Y., Nov. 1, 1918. 


7+ In May, 1895, following the 1894 massacre, the Ambassadors of 
the Powers at Constantinople agreed upon a set of reform measures 
for all of Turkish Armenia, including the Six Provinces and Cilicia, 
to which the Sultan gave his adhesion. This new reform measure, like 
its predecessors, has not been carried out. The boundaries of Arme- 
nia—Turkish, Russian and Persian—are as well defined and fixed as 


those of England. 


17 


The staff of experts on Near East of the American Peace 
Mission to the Peace Conference recommended that Cilicia 
be made a part of Armenia. 

The President, by a cable dated March 20, 1919, and ad- 
dressed to Mr. Bryan, expressed himself as being in sym- 
pathy with the attitude of the Armenians on the subject of 
Cilicia. 


On February 16, 1919, the New York Times said editori- 


ally: 


that there 1s to 
be no Armenian irredenta, in so far as the overlap- 
ping of populations may make it possible. Armenia 
has earned the right to full national liberty. Cilicia 
1s within the sphere of influence allotted to France 
by the treaties of 1916, but French economic interest 
could be guaranteed without interfering with the po- 
litical sovereignty of the Armenians in Armenian ter- 
ritory. 

“The Armenians were mistreated chiefly because 
they were Christians and held to their religion inflex- 
ibly, incidentally because they were economically 
superior to the Turks and dangerous to the Germans. 

“A nation that has been sacrificed for the faith 
and the civilization of Europe should not again be 
betrayed,in whole or in part, by Europe and America. 

“Armenia 1s as much a moral test of the Peace 
Conference as 1s Belgium.” 





From the point of view of the interest of France, it would 
be extremely unfortunate if France were to insist on the pos- 
session of Cilicia. Vee 





AMERICAN AID TO ARMENIA 
WITHOUT A MANDATE 


By HENRY W. JESSUP 


* OK OK 


In an analysis of the League Covenant in the League 
of Nations Magazine for June, 1919, I pointed out that the 
development of certain backward nations under Art. XXII 
of the revised Covenant formed ‘a sacred trust of civiliza- 
tion,’ and that peoples not yet able to stand by themselves 
were contemplated as infants in international law, for 
whom the League of Nations might appoint guardians, who 
would be subject to all the duties and obligations of such 
an officer, but with the same difference in the relationship 
of tutelage as obtains in our municipal law where a guard- 
ian acts for an infant under fourteen and for one over 
fourteen. And-taking the example of Armenia, I quoted 
the fourth paragraph of Art. XXII: “Certain communities, 
formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, have reached 
a stage of development where their existence as independ- 
ent nations can be provisionally recognized, subject to the 
rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a man- 
datary until such time as they are able to stand alone.” 
This differentiates such a people as the Armenians from the 
peoples of Central Africa, for example. As to such latter 
wards of civilization nothing is said as to consulting their 
wishes in the selection of the mandatary or in the determi- 
nation of the character of the mandate, but in regard to 
the illustration of Armenia, it is obvious that its wishes 
“must be a principal consideration in the selection of the 
Manadtary: candaun respect cothnetatter, Parallof Art XXIt 
applies, with its phrase as to entrusting tutelage of this 
mato stich advanced nation a) willing to accept’ 

During the past few years nearly every household in 
the United States has had its sympathies and interest 
aroused to the extent of contributing to the assistance of 
the Armenian people, tortured, slaughtered and deported 
by the savage Turks and Kurds. But the idea of our Gov- 
ernment accepting a mandate and becoming accountable 
to some super-government has met with much antagonism, 


19 


and at the same time the new republic of Armenia has itself 
considered whether, if it be recognized as a sovereign nation 
by the great powers, it will not itself diminish its sove- 
reignty and impair its dignity by accepting the position 
of the ward of a mandatary. The question thus emerges 
whether the result which the majority of the American 
public wishes to accomplish cannot be secured without run- 
ning counter to either of these prejudices. 1 beheve that 
this can be accomplished through the ordinary instrument- 
alities of diplomatic relationship. 

A. Let the.Government lof the Wniteé Statesma cages 
nize the new republic of Armenia as a sovereign enamoe 
and appoint a minister as its diplomatic representative to 
negotiate a treaty with the new republic, under which ad- 
ministrative advice and assistance may be afforded, with 
all the advantages and none of the disadvantages inherent 
in the scheme of the covenant of the League of Nations 
The Council of The League would welcome the elimination 
of this one problem in the Near East from its own agenda, 
and the influence of the United States when a member of 
The League, or even sooner, could be exerted in demanding 
the delimitation, under an International Boundary Commis- 
sion, of the territorial boundaries to be granted to the new 
republic. 

B. The nature of the administrative advice and assist- 
ance and the extent to which it shall be given would then 
repose where it really belongs, and the governments directly 
interested would determine whether the treaty should cover 
merely financial assistance or the appointment of adminis- 
trators of the finances of Armenia until such timee eee 
should be able to repay any loan which we might make, or 
whether it should extend to the furnishing of munitions and 
men to enforce the “No Trespassing” signs that would be set 
up against the Turks and Kurds and the Tartars and 
Georgians. But it seems clear that if the moral influence of 
Might plus Right is to be greater now than it was before the 
Great War, the fact that we are the ally of Armenia, or that 
we are back of the new government with money, and with 
men if need be, would be as effective against these savages 
of the Turkish Empire as the actual sending of troops. 

C. Under such a treaty the Armenians, with American 
administrative advice, could develop the great agricultural 
and mineral resources of the nation, and I venture to predict 
that in ten years the republic could be self-supporting and 


20 


in twenty years the United States’ loan would have been 
repaid. 

D. One great fact must be ever kept in mind in viewing 
this whole subject, and that is, that the moment security of 
life and liberty is assured in the provinces of their former 
domicile, the men and the families of Armenia would re- 
patriate themselves by tens of thousands, for it is only the 
extremities of persecution and torture that ever drove them 
from their native land. 

This solution is consistent with the desires of the recently 
organized government of the Armenian republic. It is con- 
sistent with the theory underlying the covenant of the 
League of Nations, but it is totally inconsistent with the 
suggestion, made by apparently well-meaning but singularly 
ill-advised, self-styled “friends of Turkey,” that the United 
States should accept a mandate for Armenia and Turkey 
together. Is our memory so short that we can contemplate 
making any covenant of assistance directly or through the 
League with the heirs, executors, administrators or assigns 
of Abdul the Damned? The Turks have no claim on Amer- 
ican affection or respect. A mandate for Turkey and Ar- 
menia together would be a travesty on common sense. The 
peoples are not e jusdem generis. ‘Their interests are mut- 
ually hostile. It reminds one of the American showman in 
Vienna before the war who exhibited a “Happy Family” ina 
cage, consisting of a leopard, a wolf, a hyena and a lamb, 
and when asked how long they had cohabited the cage, he 
replied, “Two years—but,” he added meditatively, “the lamb 
has to be renewed occasionally.” 

The United States wants no hyena farms. Let Europe 
or the League solve the Turkish situation. Europe created 
it by her selfishness and jealousies. Internationalize Con- 
stantinople if you like, but limit the Turks to Anatolia. They 
can possibly govern themselves, although incapable of justly 
governing others. Give them Greek neighbors on the west- 
ern Asia Minor littoral and a strong Armenia on the east and 
to the south, and let us confine our national aid to those 
worthy of it, who can be trusted to profit by it, whose suffer- 
ings have won sympathy in hundreds of thousands of Amer- 
ican homes. 

If, under treaty with Armenia, entered into with her as 
a sovereign state duly recognized by our State Department, 
we extend aid and protection, then, I say, if the Turks ag- 
eress again, teach them as the men of Succoth were taught. 


Al 


It is the only lesson they deserve or have the wit to com- 
prehend. 

Finally, the argument for our taking on the Near East 
is based entirely on philanthropic grounds. If it wins out, 
it will be because it appeals to Americans determined to re- 
store her rights to stricken Armenia. Hence it is gross fal- 
lacy to reason, as some do, that because the Turks, by 
massacre and deportation, have eliminated the Armenians 
as a present factor in certain provinces, therefore those 
provinces must not be included in New Armenia. That would 
be to effectuate the very purpose the Turks have pursued all 
along. Shall the United States pull Turkish chestnuts from 
the still smouldering fires of brutal persecution? 


A RESTORED ARMENIA 
By EDWARD C. LITTLE 


ON OK OK 


“Armenia should extend from the Mediterranean to in- 
clude Adana clear to the Caucasus. While the Armenians 
are not as thick around there as they would be if they hadn't 
killed so many of them, they are the intellectual force and 
the progressive factor in all that country through there, 
and with a little encouragement would soon dominate it 
thoroughly. 

“All that the Armenians really need or seriously seek is 
a policeman’s commission to enforce laws in that country. 
They can do the rest. In my experience on the) westers 
frontier, I learned that the gun-man who was a policeman 
generally got the better of the gun-man who was an outlaw, 
because he had a better backing and it put the other fellow 
upon the defensive, everything else being equal. At present 
Turkey is the gun-man with the policeman’s badge through 
all that country. Give Armenia that and it will come out all 
right. 

“However, it probably would add considerably to their 
prestige and standing if America accepted the task of aiding 
Armenia and perhaps established a regiment of marines for 
a while at the Mediterranean end of Armenia.” — 


Ze 


AMERICAN AID TO ARMENIA 


eer. | eR 


Lf America were to assume the task of aiding Ar- 
menia, she would be called upon to: 


A. Secure from the Powers the recognition of the 
independence of Armenia, including Russian and 
Turkish Armenias, with its littorals on the Black 
and Mediterranean Seas. 


B. Secure for Armenia adequate indemnity. 


There are several ways by which an indemnity may be 
secured. Possibly the most feasible one is the following: 


Assess the Turkish public debt of about $800,000,000 
on the several dismembered parts of Turkey, except one, 
namely, Constantinople ; impose on Constantinople a cer- 
tain tax as its share of the Turkish public debt, and assign 
that sum to Armenia as her indemnity. 


C. Send to Armenia civil and military missions, 
whose functions shall be to reorganize the Arme- 
nian Government, and exercise over it a necessary 
measure of advisory supervision for a period of five 
to ten years; 


D. Dispatch to Armenia possibly one regiment of 
troops for a brief period. 


The Armenian Republic, (in the Caucasus), which in- 
cludes about one-half of the Armenians that are to be 
in united Armenia, can easily create a force of 50,000 men. 
This size of a force will be ample for the protection of 
the frontiers of Armenia and the occupation of the non- 
occupied parts of Armenia. The small American force 
that is required is to accompany the Armenian regiments 
into the non-occupied parts of Armenia, as a notice to 
the Turks and Kurds that the Armenians are engaged 
in a legitimate errand by authority of the Peace Confer- 
ence and also as an evidence of the active interest that 
America takes in the welfare of Armenia. 





ARMENIA AS A BARRIER IN THE WAY OF PAN- 
TURANIANISM 


By L. P.. CHAMBERS, PH.D. 


Professor of Psychology and Philosophy, 
American College for Girls, Constantinople 


a a 


The great war was fought to establish the right of small 
nations to freedom and self-determination; and there were 
certain territorial adjustments which followed so inevitably 
from these principles that they themselves took on the dig- 
nity of principles and were embodied by President Wilson in 
his fourteen points and by Premier Lloyd George in his state- 
ment of the aims of the war. Among these territorial ad- 
justments were included the return of Alsace-Lorraine to 
France, the restoration of Polish independence, and the lib- 
eration of the subject races of Turkey. So axiomatic, indeed, 
were these points regarded that anyone who ventured to 
suggest that Alsace-Lorraine be left to Germany or that 
Poland be not set free, would have been charged not only 
with enmity to France and Poland, but also with treason to 
the sacred cause which the Entente armies had espoused. 
But the liberation of the subject races of Turkey from the 
brutality of Turkish misrule is no less sacred a task in this 
Twentieth Century Crusade; and already Arab and Jew 
have secured their independence. Not so, however, the Ar- 
menians who are yet awaiting the decisions of the Peace 
Conference with regard to Turkey. If, however, having 
established freedom and justice throughout the greater part 
of the world, the Allies should fail to secure Armenian inde- 
pendence, whether because of Turkish threats, or because 
Armenia is small and remote and not worth the trouble, or 
again because they are unable to harmonize their conflict- 
ing interests in Turkey,—it would be evidence of the lack of 
sincerity in our pretensions that we are fighting for the 
establishment of a principle, not merely in self-defense, and 
not at all for gain. 


It is sometimes argued that the granting of independence 
to the Armenian provinces of Turkey would be a violation 
of Turkey’s rights. But no nation can claim for itself a 


24 





right which it refuses to accord to another. The right which 
any nation claims to independence is based on the same right 
of all. To be an ardent advocate of Armenian independence 
is not, therefore, a mark of Turkophobia; for the claim of 
the Armenians is based on the principle adopted by the Peace 
Conference, that any people, whether Armenians or Turks, 
are worthy of independence as soon as they prove them- 
selves capable of self-government. Britain is seeking to 
extend this principle to India and to Egypt; and the United 
States to the Philippines. On the same principle, not only 
have Poland, Tcheko-Slovakia and Yugo Slavia been lib- 
erated, but also Arabia and Palestine. Some of these new 
States may require for a while the protection and guidance 
of a mandatory, and Armenia no less than others. But it 
is hard to believe that any solution of the Armenian problem 
which would leave the Armenians the only unliberated na- 
tion in the Near East, should be contemplated by any one 
who is in sympathy with the aims of this war as enunciated 
by the Allied statesmen and by President Wilson. 

But the Armenians, it is urged, are so scattered and deci- 
mated that nowhere, not even in Armenia proper, do they 
form a majority of the population; so that the Armenian 
minority would be dominated by the Moslem majority and 
their independence would gain them nothing, or else the 
Moslem majority would be dominated by an Armenian 
minority, which would not be just. But even if the assertion 
that there are more Moslems than Armenians in Armenia be 
true, this must not be confounded with a Turkish majority; 
for the Moslems of Armenia are Kurds, Circassians, Lazes, 
etc., with comparatively few Turks. Furthermore, with the 
Armenian, love of country is an obsession, almost a mania, 
and thousands of Armenians the world over, including those 
scattered throughout Turkey, are eagerly awaiting the op- 
portune moment to return “home.” This is not a mere fond 
hope; it is a settled resolution. And the return of her scat- 
tered sons will in a few years give the Armenian a decided 
majority in his own land. Moreover, with the union of 
Russian Armenia with Turkish Armenia, the Armenian ele- 
ment will constitute the majority population in Armenia. 

But there is another side to this question. If the Ar- 
menian is not now in the majority in Turkish Armenia, it is 
because a more than Prussian brutality has by the thousands 
driven him to exile or done him to death. And to accept this 
fact as an argument against erecting Armenia into an inde- 


Z 


pendent state, would be to sanction the methods whereby 
the present state of affairs was brought about. But just as 
he is no true friend of the criminal who enables him to 
escape a just punishment, so is he no true friend of the Turk 
who would allow him to retain power over a race he has so 
cruelly misruled. For if the Turk is ever to learn to rule, he 
must be taught that misrule will not be tolerated by human- 
ity. But.to refuse the plea of the Armenian racesreraa= 
dependence, after all the atrocities they have suffered at the 
hands of the Turks, would be equivalent to condoning the 
Armenian massacres as a method of government; and to 
condone pillage, rape and massacre as a method of govern- 
ment would not only be an eternal disgrace to civilization, 
but would also confirm the Turk in brutality. Britain 
learned her greatest lesson in colonial administration, when 
the thirteen American colonies revolted against injustice 
and secured their independence. 

If Turkey is ever to learn the lesson of just administra- 
tion, she must learn it in the same way; for unless she loses 
the land she has maladministered, the lesson will never be 
learned; and subject Turk as well as subject Armenian will 
be doomed to remain the hapless prey of a corrupt 
bureaucracy. 


But it is feared that an independent Armenian Republic, 
surrounded on all sides by hostile Moslem hordes, would be 
difficult to protect. It is not, however, Armenia, but the 
Armenians who are to be protected; and to leave the Ar- 
menians under the Turks, far from being a protection, would 
simply expose them to a continuation of the brutal oppres- 
sion from which they seek to escape. Any one who supposes 
that the Armenians would be protected under Turkish rule, 
has not learned the lesson of six hundred years. The Turk- 
ish theory of government is that of the absolute subjection 
of conquered races. The equality of all races and justice 
for all he may profess by his lips; but these ideas are utterly 
foreign to his theory and practice of government. As an in- 
dependent state, the Armenians could arm in self-defense; 
but.as a subject race, any resistance, armed or unarmed, 
which they might oppose to Turkish oppression, would be 
regarded as sedition and punished by brutal reprisals, as 
has been done in the past. Indeed, the Turk is already 
threatening reprisals against the Armenian, inasmuch as he, 
inspired by the declarations and promises of Allied states- 
men, openly voiced his aspirations and hopes for an inde- 


26 


pendent Armenia. But to have aroused Armenian hopes, 
only to disappoint them at the last; to have encouraged them 
to speak of “freedom” and then to leave them to the mercy 
of a government which would not fail to punish them for 
having used that word, would be a base betrayal of a small 
but valiant race. Nor, if Armenia remained a province of 
Turkey, could the League of Nations interfere in the internal 
affairs of Turkey, in case of Armenian massacres; whereas 
the League would be pledged to protect an independent Ar- 
menia against territorial aggression from outside. Only as 
an independent state, then, have the Armenians any chance 
of protection from Turkish oppression. 


Furthermore, the creation of an independent 
Armenia is necessary if the world is to be freed from 
the Pan-Turanian menace. It is because Armenia 
lies across the path of a mid-Asiatic Turanian Em- 
pire, to extend from Thrace to Chinese Turkestan, 
and from Central Russia to India, that Turkey most 
bitterly opposes Armenian independence. 


But this war was a struggle between two ideals—that of 
world dominating empire and that of a league of free nations ; 
and the latter ideal won, as indeed it was bound to do if there 
is any right in justice and any righteousness with God. 
Hence, to refuse Armenia’s plea to come into the League of 
Nations as an independent state would be not only a palpable 
violation of the ideal for which this war was fought and 
won, but it would be a violation of that ideal in favor of its 
opposite ideal, the ideal that made the war and lost it. 
Pan-Germanism, Pan-luranianism, Pan-Islamism, _Pan- 
Mongolianism, Pan-Slavism, Pan-Anglosaxonism, all belong 
to a day that is past. We are entering upon an era not of 
domination by one race, but of the co-operation of all. It is, 
however, only because he dreams of an empire that once was 
and might possibly again come to be that the Turk desires to 
retain Armenia. If Turkey is ever to be a bona-fide member 
of a league of free democracies, she must give up her 1m- 
perial ideas and welcome Armenia also, as a free nation, into 
that league. | 

There are some who would wish to conciliate Moslem 
public opinion in India, Egypt and elsewhere, by not further 
mutilating the empire of the Caliph. But Moslem Indian 
troops assisted in the capture of Jerusalem and of Bagdad; 


2F 


for this was not a war between Moslem and Christian, but 
between tyranny and democracy, and the Moslems of India 
recognize in British liberal traditions the safeguard of their 
rights. It is Turkish atrocities that have brought indignity 
upon the Caliphate, and not the victory of Entente arms in 
Palestine and Mesopotamia. The liberation of Armenia 
might work injury to the imperialistic dreams of the Sul- 
tan-Caliph, recently ally of the Hun, but it cannot affect his 
moral prestige. It is the corruption and cruelty of Turkish 
rule which has dealt that a serious blow, and the liberation 
of Arabia and Palestine have seemed but the natural result 
of Turkish misrule. One of the liberated states, however, 
is a Moslem state, the home of Islam and of its earliest Ca- 
liphs. With Mecca, Medina, Bagdad and Jerusalem lost to 
him, the retention of Van and Erzroom is a matter of utter 
insignificance, as far as the religious prestige of the Caliph is 
concerned. The danger of arousing Moslem public opinion 
by a further reduction of Turkish territory is the least of the 
problems raised by Armenia’s liberation. 

On the other hand, the failure to recognize Armenian in- 
dependence would raise more difficulties than it would avoid. 
A just solution of the Armenian question will ultimately 
solve its own problems; an unjust solution would continually 
create new ones. 


It 1s because it 1s a question of justice and not of 
prudence merely, that the advocacy of Armenian in- 
dependence seems to me to be the duty of those who 
are interested in the future of the Armenian people, 
but also of those who are interested in the cause of 
human liberty the world over. 


It is not a question of liking or disliking the Arme 
nians as a people. Like all other peoples, the Armenian 
character possesses its proportion of defects and virtues. 
But above all, they are a people endowed with a keen sense 
of nationality and an ardent yearning for liberty. And of 
all peoples in the world, the democracies of Britain, France, 
Italy and the United States should be the last:to turn a deaf 
ear to the appeal of any people for independence. 





WHY TAKE TURKEY? 


An Editorial in the N. Y. Times, Tuesday, Nov. 4, 1919 


* OK OK 


There is much to be said in favor of an American mandate for 
Armenia. Something can be said, though not very much, in favor of 
an American mandate for Constantinople. More can be said against 
it. It is hard to see what can be said in favor of an American man- 
date for a residuary Turkish state in Anatolia; or, worst of all, for an 
American mandate over the whole Turkish Empire. 


Perhaps something can be said for it, but it has not been said yet. 
Mr. Grasty’s dispatch in Sunday’s Times presented the arguments 
which are being made in Paris by those who favor an American man- 
date for what is described as “all the Turkish-speaking territory,” 
but which turns out in fact to be the Turkish-speaking territory, plus 
the territory where Greek or Armenian is the principal language, 
plus the Trans-Caucasian republics of Georgia, Russian-Armenia, and 
Azerbeijan, which suddenly comes into the argument out of nowhere 
in particular. The reasons given for this piece of statecraft are some- 
what diverse. We are to save the remains of Turkey from the rival- 
ries of European powers, which sounds like the argument of somebody 
who does not like the Greeks. “A mandate for Armenia in order to 
be successful would have to include Constantinople,’ because one- 
eighth of the population of that city is Armenian; which is equivalent 
to saying that an Irish republic would have to include Boston, or that 
union of Jugoslavia would be incomplete without the mining districts 
of Western Pennsylvania. 


Another argument is that it would save the feelings of the Turks, 
“who are willing to have properly accredited Armenians formerly 
resident in Turkey come back, but don’t want Russian Armenians.” 
It may be that the world will have to submit to Turkish ideas as to 
what Armenians are properly accredited, but America does not want 
to become accessory after—and perhaps before—the fact of murder 
and worse crimes. 


“A mandate for Armenia alone would be a gold brick,” but “a 
mandate over the whole territory, with Constantinople as head- 
quarters, would be something worth while,” is the argument in Paris. 
It would cost us, we are told, only twenty years’ work and a billion 
dollars and an army of 50,000 men. Worth while, undoubtedly, for 
the Turks; hardly for the Armenians or the Greeks or the United 
tates: 


What is the real motive of the men in the shadows who have 
persuaded some statesmen of talent and integrity to demand this 
billion-dollar gold brick? It will have to be a better argument than 
any of the pretexts so far advanced. 


29 


A FREE ALL-ARMENIA 
VS. 


A TURANIAN-BOLSHEVIKI ALLIANCE 
By DRAW 2 Dae Ditiss 


Sea oe cate 


The world must now choose between a free all-Armenia 
anda Turanian-Bolsheviki alliance, to be possibly reinforced 
by a Bolshevikized Germany. 


The Powers of the Entente are now engaged in the task 
of partitioning Turkey. If the Allied policy be carried out, 
then the world will be in danger of being forced into the 
resumption of a war which will likely be more cruel and 
more destructive than the one that has been suspended. But 
it is not yet too late to avert the threatening catastrophe. 


England is now in virtual occupation of Arabia, Mesopo- 
tamia and the major portion of Syria. France is in control of 
part of Syria, and is seeking to assert her indefensible claim 
for Cilicia, which is an essential part of Armenia. Italian 
troops are in occupation of part of Southern Anatolia, in the 
district of Iconeum. The whole western coast of Asia Minor 
is in Greek hands. Armenia is rightly demanding independ- 
ence, but the vital parts of her lands are being taken away 
from her by the Powers on the pretext that Armenian num- 
bers have been reduced by Turkish massacres. Constanti- 
nople will likely be internationalized. And there remains 
only northwestern Anatolia to be allotted to the Turks. 


The first hope of the Turk was that the Allies would dis- 
agree, just as the Balkan Allies did after the Balkan war of 
1912-13. To this end Turkish diplomats have been busy, 
both in Constantinople and Paris, trying to foment jeal- 
ousies and differences between Great. Britain and France. 
But now, if Mr. Clemenceau and Mr. Lloyd George have got 
together, the Turk’s last peaceful hope has gone. 


Recent advices from Constantinople and all parts of Asia 
Minor indicate, however, that he will not submit to the com- 
plete dismemberment of his empire without at least one des- 
perate effort witharms. But the Turk does not mean to fight 
single-handed. He counts on uniting with him his Turanian 


30 


and other neighbors, the Kurds, Persians, Tartars, Circas- 
ians, Afghans, Georgians and perhaps the Russian Bolshe- 
viki. 

The Cabinet recently formed in Constantinople is friendly 
to the Young Turk movement. There are three chief leaders 
of this party—Talaat, Enver and Djamal. It is significant 
that at present they are all out of Turkey trying to create 
alliances and, it appears, with success. Djamal is in Berne 
and in constant touch with Berlin. Talaat is reported in 
Berlin on his way to Moscow—converted to communism. 
Enver is stirring up the Tartars and the Kurds. 


For months Bolshevist agitators have been stirring Af- 
ghanistan against England. The Turk hopes to unite West- 
ern Asia and Bolshevist Russia against the European powers 
—possibly Germany, too. 

To appreciate the full situation, it is necessary to realize 
the possibilities of this alliance and put several facts to- 
gether. The recent military successes of the Bolsheviki, and 
especially their present plan of sending overwhelming forces 
into Esthonia, mean that they are going to come into direct 
contact with Germany. If Germany this winter be hard 
pressed economically—and this seems now to be the indica- 
tion—the Independent Socialists of Germany, who have al- 
ready declared unanimously for the Bolsheviki, finding the 
Bolsheviki next door, may overturn the present government 
and extend Bolshevist rule from Berlin to Western Siberia. 
And then with the Bolsheviki, working, as they already are, 
in Central Asia, one may find an alliance that will spread 
from Berlin to Samarkand, and from the Arctic Ocean to 
the Persian Gulf. 


This is what the Turk is now working for, and the pres- 
ent policy of the Allies is driving him into it. This Turkish 
policy is not new. Four years ago a Young Turk leader pro- 
claimed the Socialism of Islam. In 1914 a Yeni-Turan (New 
Turanian) Society was formed in Constantinople, with En- 
ver Bey as its President. In April, 1918, the Tasvir-i-Efkiar, 
as organ of the Young Turks (the Committee of Union and 
Progress), said it was their policy to penetrate at once Egypt 
and Turan (Central Asia), to open a road “to these Moslem 
countries such as Afghanistan and India,” and “with the aid 
of Allah and the assistance of our Prophet,” unite “300,000,- 
000 of our coreligionists.” ‘These, of course, are Turkish fig- 
ures. 


31 


Nor is this only a Turkish dream. It is the policy of the 
Bolsheviki as well. Weeks ago Trotzky said, “We Russians 
are good at languages. Wecan learn Hindustani.” Central 
Asia is already largely in their hands. There is direct rail 
connection from Berlin through Central Asia to Samarkand, 
and even beyond to Andijan, on the borders of China. All 
Central Asia is Turanian. One may ride from the Bosphorus 
almost to Peking and talk some dialect of Turkish, or akin to 
Turkish, practically all the way. And Central Asia can sup- 
ply Germany. In recent years Turkestan has been largely 
covered with cotton plantations. The grain and corn of 
Ukrainia and Central Asia could feed all Fastern Europe and 
Western Asia. The sheep in Central Asia are said to number 
two per inhabitant. The Asiatic steppes are swarming with 
eattlé. In ithe Caucasus, Ural, and Alta1 Motintainsmaue 
other regions, are coal, iron, copper, and other minerals, 
while the oil fields of Baku and elsewhere are well known. 
All of this is counted on by the clever Bolsheviki and the 
Young Turks. They at least know what they are doing. 

Europe and America do not seem to know what they are 
doing. 


Armenia is the key to the situation. 


If you will look at the map, you will see that Armenia— 
stretching from the Caucasus to the Mediterranean—lies 
between Turkey and her Turanian allies. If Armenia be 
made independent and enabled to defend herself, she can cut 
off the Turk from his allies. This is what happened in the 
world war. Then the Turks sought a Turanian alliance. But 
the Armenians stood in their way. They said at Constanti- 
nople, “If we can win the Caucasus we can win the war.” 

It is not generally known that at a conference of repre- 
sentative Armenians meeting in a theatre at Erzrum in Au- 
eust, 1914, a Turanian delegation offered to create a free 
autonomous Armenia, under German guarantee, if the Ar- 
menians would support Turkey in the war. But the Ar- 
menians dared to say “No.” It was that “no” that led to the 
massacre and deportation of the Armenians. However, it 
was with individual Kurds and Tartars, it was not fanata- 
cism nor race hatred, nor greed, that determined the Turkish 
policy. The Turkish view was that it was a military neces- 


52 


sity. The Turk thought it a choice between deporting the 
Armenians and being themselves deported out of Constan- 
tinople and large portions of Asia Minor. ‘They chose to 
deport the Armenians. That is the Turkish view of the 
deportations. 

But the Turks did not get the Caucasus and they were 
defeated by the Armenians. Ihsan Pasha of the right wing 
of the Turkish Caucasus army said: ‘Had it not been for 
the Armenians we would have conquered the Caucasus.” 
General Liman Von Sanders, the German commander in 
Syria, said: “The collapse of the Turkish Palestinian front 
was due to the fact that the Turks, against my orders and 
advice, sent all their available forces to the Caucasus and 
Azerbaijan, where they fought the Armenians.” England 
was beaten by the Turks at the Dardanelles and Kut-el- 
Amara, but they were beaten by the Armenians in and near 
the Caucasus. | 

What the Armenians did then, they can do again. The 
Turks are not as strong as they were in the war. General 
Bagratuni, the Armenian General now in this country, says 
the Armenians can put into the field 50,000 trained men if 
they can be given ammunition, and with very little aid can 
cut off the Turks from Central Asia. This will bring peace 
there, and peace is all that Asia Minor needs. 


Senator Charles S. Thomas, Democrat, Member Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, on December 16, 1918, said: 


“TI heartily approve of the Lodge Resolution, and 
of every resolution which favors Armenian independ- 
ence. I not only approve it heartily but I would go 
further and place under Armenian subjection as many 
Turks as may be necessary for the reconstruction of 
the Armenian country. 


“Of course it is impossible to compensate Arme- 
nia for the terrible butchery of her people and impos- 
sible for the Allies to retaliate in kind upon the Turks; 
but upon that country should be placed the burden of 
retribution to the full extent that retribution may be 
in the power of the Allies to enforce.” 


33 


A TURKISH SCHEME 


By VAHAN CARDASHIAN 


* KOK 


On June 22, 1919, eight out of nine members of the Exec- 
utive Committee of the American Committee for the Inde- 
pendence of Armenia, including Charles Evans Hughes, Elihu 
Root, Henry Cabot Lodge, John Sharp Williams, James W. 
Gerard, Alfred FE. Smith, Frederic Courtland Penfield and 
Charles W. Eliot, sent the following cable message to the 
President, in Paris: 


“We believe that without regard to party or creed the 
American people are deeply interested in the welfare 
of the Armenian people and expect to see the restoration 
of the independence of Armenia. When the unspeakable 
Turks were perpetrating their diabolical crimes upon 
men, women, and children of Armenia, American hearts 
were stirred with impotent horror. But with the tri- 
umph of right over primitive barbarity we had hoped 
that the Peace Conference would make it one ofits 
first duties to take necessary steps to put a stop to the 
agony of Armenia and recognize her fidelity and services 
to our cause. We now believe that the prevailing in- 
security of life and intense want in the major portion of 
Armenia make immediate action an imperative and sa- 
cred duty. We therefore respectfully urce thatwaces 
first step in that direction, and without waiting for the 
conclusion of peace, either the Allies or America or both 
should at once send to Caucasus Armenia requisite food, 
munitions and supplies for fifty thousand men, and such 
other help as they may require to enable the Armenians 
to occupy the non-occupied parts of Armenia, with- 
in the boundaries defined in the Memorandum of the 
Delegation of Integral Armenia. We trust that it may 
be possible to secure prompt and full justice “for 
APIneniane 


Upon receipt of the foregoing message, the President 
designated a special committee of Americans to prepare a 
reply. This committee included also Mr. Henry Morgenthau. 
The committee’s report, which was duly ‘transmitted to Mr. 


34 


Justice Hughes, who had headed the cable message to the 
President, stated among other things, that, said committee 
had consulted with General Harbord, that, in its opinion, 
Colonel Haskell be designated as High Commissioner of the 
Powers to Armenia, and that General Harbord be commis- 
sioned to go to Armenia to investigate conditions there on 
behalf of the United States. General Harbord selected twen- 
ty-five experts and advisors for his staff, and the title of his 
mission was given as the “American Military Mission to Ar- 
menia.” But, before the departure of the Mission for Arme- 
nia, its title was changed to “American Military Mission to 
the Near East.” General Harbord, in seven weeks, traveled 
about ten thousand miles throughout countries whose areas 
are larger than those of France, Germany and Spain com- 
bined. The party stopped ata great many important centers 
for a few hours or a day or two at the most. Quite naturally 
it was a physical impossibility. for him and his associates to 
conduct any serious investigation of conditions that obtained 
iaetie Near Bast; 

General Harbord now brings us a report which, in sub- 
stance, supports the joint mandate scheme which Mr. Mor- 
genthau had been advocating for a year or more.* 


General Harbord’s report substantially states that the as- 
sumption by America of a mandate for Armenia alone would 
be impracticable, (by Armenia he means Russian Armenia 
alone; the Turks having massacred or dispersed the Ar- 
menians in Turkish Armenia, he would offer Turkish Ar- 
menia to the Turks) and that the only mandate that should 
be considered by America, if any, should include Constanti- 
nople, Anatolia, Turkish Armenia and the Russian Trans- 
caucasus. 


The scheme that is thus being suggested presents two 
main distinct elements that should be considered; One is 
that, the Russian Transcaucasus, the title to which rests in 
Russia,—one of the allied powers—is to be detached from 
Russia, without regard to the will of Russia, and united with 
the major important part of what was formerly Turkey—a 
defeated enemy of the allied and associated powers; and the 
other is that, in this proposed copartnership, the principal 





* The report of the Harbord Mission has not been officially pub- 
lished. But, the nature of the recommendations of the Mission has 
been “forecasted” by credible news correspondents and commented 
upon broadcast. This article is a necessary comment on what has been 
forecasted. (See p. 29.) 


30 


races shall be the Turco-Tartars, Armenians, Greeks and 
Georgians. That is, the Tartars, who are the kin and core- 
ligionists of the Turks, will be brought in to help swell the 
Turkish numbers with the unavoidable result of reducing 
further the proportion of Christian numbers already reduced 
by Turkish massacres. 

The scheme that is committed to our consideration’ is purely 
Turkish, without regard to the motives or reasons of its 
non-Turk proponents. The logic of this statement can be 
readily seen by reference to the principal purposes for the 
attainment of which Turkey entered the war. The Turks 
entered the war to expel from Turkey the entente influ- 
ence and, after having eliminated the Armenian race which 
stood as a barrier between them and the Turanians beyond 
Armenia, to effect a junction with the Turco-Tartars of the 
Caucasus and the Trans-Caspian, and thus establish the foun- 
dation of a strong and homogeneous Turkish State, as a pre- 
liminary and necessary step in the direction of assuming the 
leadership of the Islamic world. Thus, a blanket mandate for 
the regions above described would be nothing else but the 
beginning of the fulfillment of a grandiose ambition which 
induced the Turk to embark on a war of unexampled brutal- 
ity and destruction.* 


* Damad Ferid (Sherif) Pasha, President of the Turkish Delega- 
tion to the Peace Conference, in his memorandum dated June 17, 1919, 
which he submitted to that body, put all the blame for the entry of 
Turkey into the war and the atrocities committed by the Turkish goy- 
ernment during the war on the Committee of Union and Progress; 
absolved the Sultan and the government which the Turkish Delegation 
represented of all responsibility, and advocated that the territorial 
integrity of Turkey should be preserved. The writer of these lines 
has had sufficient personal association with ‘Turkish ministers, 
ambassadors and officials of all grades—young and old—and 
also with the common Turkish people, to enable him to make the 
deliberate statement that murder and plunder of Christians have 
always been favored by an overwhelming majority of the Turks. The 
exceptions are so few that no particular attention need be given them 
in considering this phase of the Turkish question. Turkish history 
has been uniformly marked with blood, fire and destruction. The 
Turks have never ruled with justice and efficiency, and they have not, 
during their entire career, contributed one jot to the make-up of our 
civilization. Between 1821 and 1914 they massacred Greeks, Nesto- 
rians, Maronites, Bulgarians, Serbs, Armenians and Macedonians. Dr. 
Ahmed Riza, President of the Turkish Senate, who is also the leader 
of the so-called liberal wing of the Young Turk party, during his 
exile in Paris, justified in his paper, “Meshveret,”’ the Armenian mas- 
sacres of 1894-96. The Young Turks, in 1909, nine months after their 
* accession to power, in conspiracy with Abd-ul-Hamid, planned and car- 


36 


It would appear that if moral considerations are not to 
play a determining role in connection with the adjustment 
of the Turkish case, considerations of policy and of reason 
should. It is repeatedly asserted that the numerical insuf- 
ficiency of the Armenians makes it difficult to create at once 
an Armenian State within the boundaries claimed by the 
Armenians. ‘The premise upon which this conclusion is 
based is not supported by the facts of the case. But as- 
suming that it were so, then again it would be clearly inex- 
pedient and unwise, from the point of view of the interest 
of civilized society, to establish a precedent whereby a ruling 
nation may destroy with impunity a subject race and then 
be allowed to profit by a majority gained by calculated mur- 
der. Also, it should be granted as a general principle, that no 
political entity that is not based on racial or national foun- 
dations or considerations can operate successfully. The 
history of the Turk is an eloquent testimony to the logic of 
this principle. Primarily the Turk has failed as a ruler be- 


ried out the Cilician massacres, and Abd-ul-Hamid, for his own account, 
plotted an abortive coup against the Young Turks, which took place on 
the same day that the massacres were started. The ringleaders of the 
Cilician massacres remain unpunished. ‘The so-called Turkish liberals, 
who lived in Switzerland during the Great War, and who are now at 
the helm of the new Turkish Government, did not raise a voice of pro- 
test against the Armenian horrors of 1915. No right-thinking person 
can offer one word of apology for the policy of the Turks against their 
subjects; and no intelligent person would advocate that the Turks 
should be entrusted once more with the government of any part of 
Turkey. The unfitness of the Turk to rule the subject races, or even 
himself, is no longer a debatable question. In so far as the Armenians 
are concerned, they are definitely resolved not to have any further 
direct or indirect political connection with the Turk. Armenia will 
no longer be a pawn in a selfish game. Unfortunately, there are to be 
found, even to-day, a few men here and there whose visions are so de- 
fective and whose souls are so completely imbued with the discredited 
Machiavellian school diplomacy, that they advocate doing “full jus- 
tice” to the Armenians by assuring for them, under some makeshift 
arrangement, “security of life, honor and property,” instead of giving 
them unconditionally what, according to the laws of God and man, 
belongs to them. Men with such mentality and morality have a very 
ereat responsibility for the ills of the past, and it would be manifestly 
unwise and immoral to pay the slightest heed to their arguments or 
advice in the adjustment of Turkish affairs, which must be based on 
reason and justice. As for the Armenian horrors of 1915, the direct 
responsibility for them belongs to the Turks, who perpetrated them ; 
to the Germans, who possessed absolute power to prevent them, and 
did not, and to the neutral world, which did not make an earnest and 
timely effort to mitigate, if it could not prevent, this most ghastly and 
colossal crime in recorded history. 


37 


cause of his native barbarity and the superiority of the civil- 
ization of his Christain subjects over his civilization. But, 
even without these, the national individuality of the Arme- 
nian and the Greek, which distinguishes them from the Turk 
by origin, tradition, language, faith and aspirations, would 
have made impossible the successful government by the Turks 
of the Greeks and the Armenians. It should also be granted 
that a mere opportunity for the untrammelled enjoyment of 
cultural and religious autonomy cannot satisfy the instinc- 
tive aspirations for nationality of a nation gifted with the 
necessary attributes that make for nationhood. That the 
Turk, Greek and Armenian populations now overlap each 
other and are mixed with each other is true; but this can be 
no bar to the building up of separate nations of each, provided 
they possess necessary elements for separate statehood. The 
negative argument is based on artificial conditions which 
can and must be cured by repatriation, immigration and 
emigration. All newly created states go through processes 
of readjustment and of reintegration. 


Kp Ee a 


Now for a clear understanding of the subject under dis- 
cussion we must necessarily make a closer study of the geo- 
graphical, ethnological and political aspects of the territories 
for which America is asked to become mandatary. 

The Russian Caucasus: The Caucasus has an area of 
180,703 square miles and an estimated population of 14,000,- 
000. It comprises two geographical divisions, namely, Cis- 
caucasia or northern Caucasus, and Transcaucasia, or south- 
ern Caucasus. 

Ciscaucasia contains four out of the fourteen adminis- 
trative divisions of the old viceregency of the Caucasus. It 
has an area of 96,672 square miles and an estimated popula- 
tion of 7,000,000. (Ciscaucasia does not enter into the con- 
sideration of the subject under discussion, but is mentioned 
here by way of clarifying the explanations that are to fol- 
low.) 

Transcaucasia, for which it is advocated that America 
should accept a mandate, together with certain portions of 
former Turkey, contains ten out of the fourteen adminis- 
trative divisions of the old viceregency of the Caucasus. 
It has an area of 84,131 square miles, and comprises Georgia, 
Russian Armenia and Russian Azerbeijan. According to 
the Russian statistics of 1917, Transcaucasia had a popula- 


38 


tion of 6,995,400, of which 2,517,000 were Turco-Tartars, 
1,786,800 Armenians, and 1,780,400 Georgians. Again, ac- 
cording to the Russian census of 1917; Russian Armenia, 
which is now known as the Republic of Armenia, had a popu- 
lation of 2,159,000, of which 1,293,000, or sixty per cent., 
were Armenians, and the next largest elements were four 
principal Moslem races, which together numbered 588,000, 
or twenty-seven per cent. of the population. 


In the spring of 1917, after the outbreak of the Russian 
Revolution, the then Kerensky Government created in and 
for Transcaucasia a special administrative body, styled as 
SiemteOmiilissariaty On ltanscaucasia. Butyaini November; 
1917, when the Bolsheviki overthrew the Kerensky Govern- 
ment and established the Soviet rule in Russia, Transcau- 
casia declined to recognize the authority of the Bolshevik, 
and the Commissariat of Transcaticasia, on November 28, 
1917, declared itself the supreme authority in Transcaucasia. 

In February, 1918, the Seim, or the legislative assembly 
of Transcaucasia, convened in the city of Tiflis, accepted the 
resignation of the Commissariat, and, in its place, instituted 
a temporary government composed of several ministries. 
Aad, under the force of the then prevailing external and 
internal political conditions, the Seim of Transcaucasia, on 
April 22, 1918, declared itself as an independent state under 
the name of the Federal Democratic Republic of Transcau- 
casia. Thus, the three principal peoples of Transcaucasia, 
Armenians, Georgians and the Tartars of Azerbeijan, be- 
came parties to the Federation, with their respective terri- 
tories. But this Federal Republic of Transcaucasia scarcely 
lasted five weeks. The cause of its instability was the fact 
that the political tendencies of the three constituent nations 
were different, even conflicting with each other. The point 
at issue was the attitude of Transcaucasia to the war then 
still raging. 

Since the beginning of the war, the sympathy of the Tar- 
tars was wholly with the Turks. When in December, 1917, 
the Russian armies abandoned the Caucasian front, and the 
Turkish forces started their forward march, the Tartars 
openly allied themselves with the Turks. The Georgians 
had for a long time been in communication with Germany. 
They were seeking the protection of Germany and were at 
all times ready to withdraw from the war, provided the in- 
dependence of Georgia was recognized. 


39 


But the Armenians elected to remain and did remain 
loyal to the cause of the Entente and the associated powers; 
mustered together whatever fighting forces they could and, 
single-handed, challenged the advancing Turkish armies. 

These internal conflicts daily becoming more emphatic, 
made it impossible for Armenians, Georgians and ‘Tartars 
to work in harmony within the sphere of a single state. 

Thus, on May 26, 1918, the Seim declared the termina- 
tien of the Federal Republic of Lranscaucasia andere 
quished its authority. On the same day, Georgia declared 
her independence; and after two days, namely, on May 28, 
1918, Armenia and Azerbeijan likewise declared their own 
independence. 

From that day began the existence of the Republic of 


Armenia. 


The obvious unwisdom of America’s accepting a mandate 
for Georgia and Azerbeijan is that those geographical units 
belong to Russia, and in view of their considerable natural 
wealth and important strategical positions, and also in view 
of the attitude that the Georgians and Tartars assumed to- 
ward Russia in the moment of her difficulties, one would 
be led to believe—and this belief is based on what the 
writer knows to be the views of Russian leaders on the sub- 
ject—that reorganized Russia will not willingly permit 
Georgia and Azerbeijan to be detached from her body. In 
the’case or. Armenia, this diticulty does not exists oe aes 
nians have been faithful to Russia throughout the war. Ar- 
menian resident ministers have been received by Kolchak 
and Denikine. Russian Armenia is not essential to the main- 
tenance of Russian rule or influence in the Caucasime 
Russian Armenia is a landlocked country, devoid of any par- 
ticular economic value, such as Baku and Batum possess. 
Russian leaders have repeatedly stated that if Russian Ar- 
menia wishes to unite with Turkish Armenia, which they 
recognize as an inevitable necessity, then Russia will raise 
no objection to any such union. From the point of view of 
mandate, it should be stated that Russian Armenia alone is 
insufficient to constitute the nucleus of an independent state. 
But when we speak of Armenia, we mean Russian and Turk- 
ish Armenia united, the latter of which has outlets on the 
Black and Mediterranean Seas; and which is richer is re 
sources than all the sixteen or more states which have been 
created or are likely to be created asa result of the Great War. 


40 


The former Turkish Empire: The former Turkish Em- 
pire has an area of 694,960 square miles and an estimated 
population of eighteen to twenty millions. It has six geo- 
graphical divisions, namely—l. Turkey in Europe, 12,000 
Pdeuiiiicsame ce side WlINOn of Anatolia, L93:800 square 
miles, of which 20,625 square miles constitute parts of Ar- 
ijenias Vuinor and Lesser Armenia or Cilicia.. 3, Armenia, 
101,000 square miles.* 4. Syria, including Lebanon and 
Palestine, 80,285 square miles. 5. Mesopotamia, 156,500 
square miles. 6. Arabia (Yemen and Hijaz) 172,000 square 
miles. 

It is being suggested that America accept a blanket man- 
date for Constantinople, Anatolia and Armenia. The pro- 
posed arrangement excludes the Arabic speaking sections of 
former Turkey, and keeps together the Armenians, Greeks 
and Turks. The scheme that is thus proposed fully meets 
with the wishes of the Turks, and is absolutely opposed to 
the wishes and interests of the Armenians and the Greeks. 
There are no moral, political or economic considerations that 
would suggest the advisability of keeping together these 
three irreconcilable races under one political leadership. The 
impossibility of the task has been fully demonstrated, be- 
cause apart from the consideration of the inaptitude of the 
Turk to rule alien races, or even himself, the Armenian and 
the Greek rightly aspire to become free and independent not 
only from Turkish association, but also from any other for- 
eign domination. Of course, if America wishes to accept a 


* Turkish Armenia has an area of 101,000 square miles, and Russian 
Armenia an area of 26,491 square miles. What constitutes Turkish 
Armenia has been defined in four international documents since 1878. 
1. Under Article 61 of the Treaty of Berlin, the provinces of Erzerum, 
Van, Bitlis, Harpoot, Diarbekir and Sivas, which have an area of 
96,600 square miles, were recognized as constituting parts of Armenia. 
2. Under the terms: of the Ambassadors’ Memorandum of 1895, said 
Six Provinces and Cilicia were recognized as Turkish Armenia. 
3. Under the terms of the Reform Measure, dated February 8, 1914, 
agreed upon between Germany and Turkey on the one side, and Rus- 
Sia, representing the Entente and the Armenians, on the other, acting 
by direction of the Ambassadorial Conference of London of 1913, said 
Six Provinces and the Province of Trebizond, which have an area of 
109,100 square miles, were considered as parts of Turkish Armenia. 
At the suggestion of Germany, Cilicia, or Lesser Armenia (the Bagdad 
Railroad crosses through it), was to become a separate subject of 
treatment. 4. Under Article XXIV of the terms of the armistice 
eranted to Turkey by the Allies, dated November 1, 1918, the above 
mentioned Six Provinces were referred to as the “Six Armenian Vila- 
yes, 


4] 


mandate for Constantinople, or for Anatolia, or even for 
the moon, it is for America to determine. But if the sug- 
vestion for the acceptance by America of a unitary mandate 
for the three geographical entities is being urged in the 
interest of Armenia, then it should be clearly and emphati- 
cally stated that the interest of Armenia does not require 
any such arrangement. 

The scheme of a joint mandate is being advocated by the 
Turks, and for the Turks, because it serves the Pan-Turanian 
purpose of the Turks. The so-called Nationalist Govern- 
ment of Kemel Pasha is also advocating a joint mandate. 
Under that scheme the Armenians of Constantinople, Ana- 
tolia, Georgia, and Azerbeijan would have no inducement 
to go back to Armenia. Under that scheme, the Armenians 
would wisely remain where they are, because with the ex- 
piration of the term of mandate, the Turks will be in a more 
favorable position than ever before to assault Armenian life, 
honor and property. Otherwise, the mandatary of those 
regions must remain there forever. 

The proponents of joint mandate assert that a mandate 
for Armenia alone is impracticable because they seek to con- 
fine Armenia to Russian Armenia only—about one-fifth of 
Armenia—which has no access to the sea and is alone insuffi- 
cient in the economic sense. Under their scheme, the Turks, 
having succeeded in destroying or driving out of their homes 
a million and a half Armenians of Turkish Armenia, ought 
to be permitted to profit by their crimes.* 

A point which has been repeatedly mentioned as con- 
stituting an argument against the creation of an Armenian 
State is that within the Armenia to be Armenians will be in 
the minority. This view is not founded on facts. In 1913, 
the population of Turkish Armenia was estimated at 3,788,- 





* Any proposition for the settlement of the Armenian case which 
does not immediately put all of Armenia on the map as a separate Ar- 
menian State, will not be acceptable to the Armenians. The case of 
Armenia must not be mixed or bound up with that of any other geo- 
graphical division or racial entity of Turkey, or with the alleged special 
interest or claim of another nation. Armenia belongs to the Armenians 
in the same sense that France belongs to the French. The turks 
and the Kurds, who are invaders and wrong-doers, may remain in 
Armenia, if they so elect, and they will be assured of an impartial rule; 
but, their spurious and pretended claims as to their own numbers, etc., 
have no more weight and validity than the claim of a criminal to the 
possession of the house of his neighbor whom he has murdered. The 
slightest suggestion of willingness on the part of the Powers to lend 


42 


000, of which 1,403,000 were Armenians, 1,635,000 Turks, 
Kurds and other Moslems, and the balance other Christian 
and non-Christian communities. On this estimated population 
was based the decision of the Ambassadorial Conference at 
London, in 1913, by and under which Turkish Armenia, ex- 
clusive of Cilicia, was placed under international control. 
It should, however, be conceded that the Turks claim a 
larger number of population for themselves than the num- 
ber conceded by the Armenians. Asa matter of fact, Guinet, 
French statistician, puts the number of the Moslem popula- 
tion of Armenia at 2,400,000, which is 462,000 more than 
conceded by the Armenians, since Guinet includes Kauzil- 
Bachiz and Yezidiz among the Turks, which the Armenians 
rightly do not. But even on the basis given by Guinet, the 
Armenians make a good showing. In 1914, there were 
2,008,000 Armenians in Turkey, one million of whom have 
possibly perished. So that with the repatriation of the 
Armenian refugees who are now in Russian Armenia (350,- 
000), and in Mesopotamia, Syria and Anatolia (about 250,- 
000), there will be three-quarters of a million Armenians in 
Turkish Armenia. The Moslem elements in Turkish Ar- 
menia now hardly number between a million and a million 
and a half. (By Moslem elements we understand, Turks, 
Kurds, Circassians and others). It should be recalled that 
the President of the Turkish Delegation to the Peace Con- 
ference stated that the Moslems of Turkey have been re- 
duced in numbers by no less than three millions. It is a 
fact that the largest proportion of the Moslem losses was 
suffered in Turkish Armenia, as a result of Russian invasion, 
when the Moslems fled westerly, and died by the thousands 
from pestilence, starvation and exposure. In the fall of 





ear to the arguments of the Turks, or of those who argue like Turks, 
will be tantamount to condonation and approval of the Turk’s crimes. 
It will mean that they are willing to take advantage of the result of 
their own omission. It will mean that they are willing to establish a 
precedent whereby a ruling nation may destroy a subject race, as a 
means of disposing of the rightful claims of that race. The point 
at issue is one of essential morality which cannot be determined 
by hair-splitting arguments as to relative numbers. That sort of pre- 
tended evidence by criminals must be ruled out by a court of equity. 
Had the Powers done their duty since 1878, there would have been over 
four million more Armenians than there are to-day. The fact is, how- 
ever, that with the union of the Russian and Persian Armenias to 
Turkish Armenia, the Armenians will constitute not less than sixty-six 
per cent. of the population of the reunited Armenia. 


43 


1917, the normal Turk and Kurd population of about 551,- 
QOO in the Provinces of Van, Bitlis and Erzrum had been 
reduced to 96,000, and in the City of Diarbekir, out of a 
resident and refugee Moslem population of 63,000 only 6,000 
Wiercml eit 

eee ee 


To recapitulate: ‘There are 1,293,000 native Armenians 
in Russian Armenia; there will be three-quarters of a mil- 
lion native Armenians in Turkish Armenia; there are 
494,000 Armenians in Georgia and Azerbeijan, 100,000 Ar- 
menians ‘in Persian Armenia; and about a halt aie 
Armenians in other regions, the great majority of whom 
are now prepared to migrate to Armenia, provided that 
Armenia include her natural boundaries. Thus the question 
of population, as it has been stated above, will be adjusted 
by repatriation, emigration and immigration. Armenians 
will immigrate into Armenia, and a great many Turks will 
emigrate to Anatolia, where there is ample room for them. 
We estimate that there will be in the proposed Armenian 
State a minimum of two and a half million Armenians and 
a maximum of one million Moslems, out of a population of 
about four and a half millions. 

In connection with the question of the proportion of 
populations, it is well to recall the facts that the Viurkemam 
1865, constituted about fifteen per cent. of the population of 
the then Turkish Empire; that in 1914, they constituted not 
more than twenty-five per cent. of the population of Turkey, 
and that they are now the minority population even in Con- 
stantinople. 

It would appear that the principal reason for the hesi- 
tancy om the part of America to extend a helping hand to 
Armenia to organize her government is that the seadem 
of the Entente Powers have lacked necessary clarity: 
their public declarations on the: subject. When itis stapeu 
that the Powers’ of the,fntente have been overburdened 
with responsibilities in Asia and in Africa, and that it is for 
America to carry a part of the white man’s burdenj ine 
clear implication is that they are unwilling, if offered the 
opportunity, to add Armenia to the list of their possessions. 
Thatys not the fact, Great Britain and Prance aresnes 
carrying any burdens in administering Mesopotamia or 
Syria or any other part of the former Turkish Empire. They 
have gone there willingly, and they would be extremely 


Ad 


reluctant to get out of there. They would be very anxious 
indeed to take hold of Armenia if it were offered to them, 
mot tne fact is that Great Britain. does not want Hrance in 
Armenia, and France does not want Great Britain there. 
These observations should serve to dissipate the fear that 
has naturally found lodgment in the minds of a great many 
Americans that America is being offered a gold brick by 
being asked to help Armenia. It is likewise erroneous to 
assume that America, by undertaking the task of helping 
Armenia, would be protecting directly or indirectly the En- 
tente possessions 1n the east. The specific purpose for which 
America is to go into Armenia is to help the Armenians or- 
ganize their government, and not to protect the Armenian 
frontiers against any hostile attack in which, if one were to 
take place, all the nations would and should be equally 
interested. Armenia will have on her northern, north- 
eastern and northwestern frontiers Russia, without whose 
m@equtescence sRilssian Atmenia cannot be made a part of 
Armenia, and with her acquiescence no trouble can be ex- 
BeereaeiLonmtuatssounce, On her, southeastern frontiers 
maeresare Persia, Mesopotamia and. Syria, which will -be 
under the influence or guidance of Great Britain and France. 
Wiener western frontier there will be a reduced Turkey, 
whose army will be demobilized, and whose population will 
not be larger than the Armenian population of Armenia. 
It is therefore difficult to see as to how and why America 
should be confronted with any contingency that would im- 
pose upon her the task of fighting hostile nations by helping 
Armenia. At this moment Armenia asks of America a few 
battalions for the moral effect that their presence will neces- 
sarily have; food, munitions and supplies for an army of 
30,000 men in Armenia, and food for civil population until 
the next crop. Give the Armenian arms, and the Turk, the 
Kurd and the Tartar will leave him undisturbed. 


For her unyielding fidelity to the Christian faith, for 
her heroic loyalty to the allied cause, and for the services 
that she will hereafter render to the cause of civilization in 
the Near East, Armenia is entitled to the prior support and 
sympathy of America. It is through America only that she 
can hope to secure the fulfillment of her aspiration of cen- 
turies—the unity and independence of historic Armenia. 


45 


ARMENIA’S SHARE IN THE WINNING OF THE WAR 


LORD ROBERT CECIL 
on October 3, 1918, wrote: 


EX-PREMIER KERENSKY 
on August 20, 1918, said: 


GEN. VON LUDENDORFF, 
in his book, states: 


GEN. LIMAN VON SANDERS, 
German Commander in 
Syria, following Turkey’s 
surrender. 


GEN. ALLENBY, 
After Turkey’s debacle in 
Palestine, telegraphed to 
President Armenian Na- 
tional Delegation, Paris: 


“Tn the beginning of the War, the Russian Ar- 
menians organized volunteer forces, which bore 
the brunt of some of the heaviest fighting in the 
Caucasian campaign. After the Russian Army’s 
breakdown last year, the Armenians took over 
the Caucasian front (over two hundred miles 
long), fought the Turks for five months, and 
thus rendered very important services to the 
British Army in Mesopotamia. (They also cap- 
tured Baku from the Turko-Tartars, and held it 
from March to July, 1918, until the arrival of 
the British.) They served alike in the British, 
French and American armies, and have borne 
their part in General Allenby’s victory in Pales- 
tine. The services rendered by the Armenians 
to the common cause can never be forgotten.” 


“At the outbreak of the War, the Turks cap- 
tured Sary-Kamish, and were marching on 
Tiflis. All the high officials, including the Vice- 
roy, were preparing for a hasty flight. Of_all the 
races of the Caucasus, the Armenians alone stuck 
to their posts, organized volunteer forces and, 
by the side of their Russian comrades, faced the 
formidable assaults of the enemy, and turned his 
victorious march into a disastrous rout.” 


“The principal factor that forced the breakdown 
of the German Army in the west was due to the 
lack of fuel supply, because the Turks did not get 
to Baku in time.” 

It should be recalled that the MRussian- 
Caucasus Army went home in December, 
1917; that the Turks and Tartars fought the 
Armenians, who remained the only faithful al- 
lies of the allied and associated powers, and that 
the Turks did not reach Baku until September, 
1918; that is, eight months after the defection of 
Russia. 


“The collapse of the Turkish Palestinian front 
was due to the fact that the Turks, against my 
orders and advice, sent all their available forces 
to the Caucasus and Azarbeijan, where they 
fought the Armenians.” 


“Tam proud to have Armenian contingents un- 
der my command, They fought brilliantly and 
took a leading part in the victory.” 


46 


ARMENIA AND THE ARMENIANS 


The Armenians, a race of the Indo-European stock, 
(Alpine Aryan like the Swiss, North Italian and most Greeks) 
about 1300 years B. C., left their original home in Thrace, 
Southeastern Hurope, crossed the Bosphorous over into By- 
thinia, pushed Fasterly into Cappadocia, and Northern Cili- 
cia, and in about the 8th century B. C. reached the region of 
the mountain of Ararat, where they founded the State of 
Armenia.* “Herodotus”; “Plonius”; “J. De Morgan.” 


King Herachia of Armenia was an ally of Nebuched- 
nezzar in the capture of Jerusalem 600 B. C. King Tigranes 
of Armenia was the ally of Cyrus the Great in the conquest 
of Babylonia and the consequent liberation of the Jews from 
/0-years’ captivity 538 B. C. 

Under Tigranes the Great, (fl. lst Century B. C.) Arme- 
nia attained the height of her glory and power, and extended 
from the Caspian to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, 
from the Caucasus to the Mesopotamian plains, with an area 
exceeding 500,000 square miles and a population of 25,000,- 
O00. “Langlois”; “Lanormant.” 


Religion.—Armenia has the first Christian National 
Church in the world. Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew 
preached the Gospel in Armenia. Since, in unbroken succes- 
sion, the Church has had 137 Pontiffs, whose seat, since 309, 
(with occasional transfers elsewhere) has been at Etch- 
Miadzin, the Great Monastery, in Russian Armenia. 


Of the 4,470,000 of Armenians the world over (in 1912), 
about 150,000 are, since 1830, under the jurisdiction Gite 
Church of Rome; about 100,000 have joined, since 1847, 
Protestant denominations, through the American mission- 
aries, and the remainder are the Sanerent: of the Apostolic 
Church of Armenia. ‘To-day the Church has 100 Bishops and 
Archbishops; about 10,000 ecclesiastics of lower rank and 
3909 parishes. 





* The Ilyrians, who are the present Albanians, the Phrygians, who 
have been subsequently merged in the Greeks, and the Greeks were the 
immediate neighbors of the ‘Armenians in Thrace, and they all belong 
to the same branch of the Aryan family. 


47 


Bertrand Bareilles writes as follows of this Church: 


“In the essentially democratic constitution of the 
Armenian Church, there is inhérent “ay liberality” of 
thought; and the first thing which strikes us when we 
study the framework of her society is, that her clergy do 
not form a distinct and separate class.” 


Post-Christian Period.—Following her conversion to 
Christianity, Armenia was in continual death-grapple with 
the Zoroasterian Persia and the ever surging hordes of bar- 
barians from the wilds of Asia. Armenia was the highway 
upon which crossed and recrossed the alien enemies of civili- 
zation—the Arab, Mongol, Tartar, Turk. The Armenians, 
isolated and separated from the rest of civilization, repre- 
sented the West in the East and fought its first battles. And 
now exhausted by the swelling and pressing tide of the pagan 
and Moslem forces, they retreated Westerly and set up the 
Kingdom of Lesser Armenia, along the coast of the Mediter- 
ranean, in 1080. Here they became the active allies of the 
Crusaders. But with the collapse of that unfortunate move- 
ment they fell a prey to the wrath and vengeance of the 
Mameluke Sultan of Egypt. King Lean VI, after eight 
months’ defense of Sis, his capital, laid down his arms in 
May, 1375, and thus ended the independence of Armenia. 
Armenia was eventually divided between Turkey, Russia and 
Persia. “Dulaurier”’; “Stubbs”; “Neumann.” 


Sir Edwin Pears makes the following observations 
about them: 


“They are physically a fine race. The men are usually 
tall, well built and powerful. The women have a healthy 
look about them which suggests good motherhood. They 
are an ancient people of the same Indo-European race as 
ourselves, and speak an allied language. During long 
centuries, they held their own against Persians, Arabs, 
Turks and Kurds. Whenever they have had a fighting 
chance they proved their courage. .9 7 <7 A laree pro- 
portion of them remained tillers of the soil. In com- 
merce they are successful not only in Turkey, but in 
France, England and India. Though subject to persecu- 
tion for centuries under Moslem rule (because of their 
Christian faith, their superior intelligence, their industry 
and thrift), they have always managed to have their race 
respected.” 


Language—Literature—Arts—Music.—V illefroi, Dore 
St. Martin, Hubschmann recognize the Armenian as one of 
the Indo-Germanic languages that has attained the highest 


48 


degree of development, by a varied and ancient intellectual 
culture. 

Sir Henry Norman considers the ancient, mediaeval and 
modern Armenian literature, including works of imagina- 
tion, novels, romance and poetry, comparable to any other 
literature. 

F, D. Lynch, referring to the architecture of a few of 
the 1,001 churches and other ruins of Ani, the capital of 
Armenia in the 9th century, expresses the opinion that the 
Armenians were the originators of the Gothic style of archi- 
tecture, and further says: “These monuments of an ancient 
civilization leave no doubt that the Armenian people may be 
included in the small number of races who have shown them- 
selves susceptible of the highest culture.” 

Sir Edwin Pears considers the Armenians as the most 
artistic and musically talented race in Turkey. 

Armenians in Foreign Lands and Under Alien Rule.— 
During and after their independence, many Armenians dis- 
tinguished themselves, almost in every field of the life of the 
country in which they settled. 

Nerses, the favorite of Theodora and the Commander-in- 
Chief of the legions of Justinian; Dadarshis, the renowned 
Pemcraleol woatius tiystaspis; Proersios, the teacher of St. 
Gregory Nazianzen, of St. Basil, and of Julian the Apostate; 
Isaac, the Exarch of Ravenna, who held sway over Italy 
(625-643) were Armenians. According to Gelzer, it was dur- 
ing the reigns of the twelve Armenian Emperors, such as 
Maurice, Leo, Basil, Zemisces, and of Empress Theodora 
Augusta, that Byzantium reached the zenith of her glory 
and power. 

In 1410, the Armenian nobility fought with the armies 
of Poland against the German invaders, and thus contributed 
to the victory of Grunwaldt, without which “the German 
deluge would have effaced Poland.” 

In 1683, five thousand Armenian warriors aided Sobieski 
in beating back the high tide of the Turk invasion from the 
eate of Vienna, which victory saved Europe from the threat- 
ened domination of the Turk. 

In 1812 it was. an Armenian General, Prince Pakraduni, 
that matched his skill against that of Napoleon at Moscow, 
and thus struck the mortal blow at the ambition of the Great 
Emperor. 

During the Russo-Turkish war of 1877, of the dozen or 
more Armenian generals in the Russian army, Loris Melikoff 

49 


was the Commander-in-Chief of the Caucasus forces, who 
subsequently became the Prime Minister of Russia and 
drafted her first constitution. 

According to Lord Cromer, “the Armenians have at- 
tained the highest administrative ranks, and have at times 
exercised a decisive influence upon the conduct of public 
affairs in Egypt.” 

The first Prime Minister of Egypt, following British 
occupation, was an Armenian. Lucasz, who was the Prime 
Minister of Hungary in 1913, was also an Armenian. 


Prince Malcolm, one of the first leaders of the Persian 
reform movement; Aivazovsky, the greatest marine painter 
of the 19th century; Althen, who introduced to France the 
cultivation of rubic tinctorum; Manuelian, one of the fore- 
most of the histologists of our time; the late Dr. Kassabian 
of Philadelphia, who was one of the leading Roentgen ray 
investigators in the world; the late Governor Thomas Cor- 
win of Ohio, who also at one time became Secretary of the 
WSs. lréasuny, belons- to the nrineniaienace: 


In Turkey, the Armenians have been one of the principal 
constructive forces, despite the oppressive and obstructive 
Turk rule, and they have, together with the Greek, supplied 
the Turk with his manifold wants. Even the Turkish print- 
ing press, the Turkish grammar and the Turkish theatre 
owe their origin to the initiative of the Armenian. 


General Sherif Pasha, the former Turk Ambassador at 
Stockholm, made the following statement in October, 1915: 


“If there is a race which has been closely connected with 
the Turk by its fidelity, by its services to the country, by the 
statesmen and functionaries of talent it has furnished, by 
the intelligence which it has manifested in all domains— 
commerce, industry, science and the arts—it is certainly the 
Armenian.” 


Prof. Von Eucken, the foremost German authority on 
the Near Fast, says of them: “Any one who is to some extent 
acquainted with the political and intellectual history of the 
Armenian nation, and knows with what enormous difficul- 
ties this people of an ancient civilization has had to struggle, 
and has especially to-day to contend with, will be filled with 
sincere respect for a people who could accomplish so much 
in the midst of all those tribulations.” 

50 


Dr. Paul Rohrbach, the well known German Orientalist, 
writes as follows: 


“We may say without exaggeration that not only in 
Armenia proper, but far beyond its boundaries, the economic 
life of Turkey rests, in great part, upon the Armenians.” 


Dr. Barton, Secretary of the American Board of Com- 
missioners for Foreign Missions, formerly President of the 
Euphrates College, Armenia, writes as follows in the Octo- 


ber issue, 1918, of The World Court: 


“In the modern intellectual revival in Turkey the Ar- 
menians were the first to respond. They not only eagerly 
fostered modern education among themselves and in their 
own country, but thousands of bright Armenian young men 
and women have studied in the educational centers of the 
world and have won distinction by the superiority of their 
intellect and their unconquerable desire and zeal for educa- 
tion. There is no race on the face of the earth more worthy, 
by its inheritance, its intrinsic worth, its intellectual capacity 
and ability, its traditional industry, its peaceful temper and 
spirit, its domestic hopes and purposes, of a free and inde- 
pendent existence. In no commercial enterprise, no form of 
industry, no profession, and in no institution of learning in 
Turkey or elsewhere do the Armenians take second place. 

“It was at this race that the blow of destruction was pri- 
marily aimed by the government of the Young Turks in the 
winter of 1914 and the spring of 1915. This historic, edu- 
Cared) and refined people were maltreated in°a thousand 
iemiucestarved and exiled. Its oreatest crimé is that in con- 
tact with its Turkish neighbors, it has far outstretched all 
the rest in enterprise and industry; and in religion it has 
stood firmly against the persecution of its Mohammedan 
over-lords, refusing to exchange Jesus Christ for Mo- 
Hammed,’ 


51 


000‘OZFF Open erat tet i amie pea) 


000‘OST prtstateledentes 
000‘0ZI el oes 
| o00‘0sz peer orto. 
L 000‘¢8T Bee ene eae 


000°€89 


0000+ Spas a Meke ee). bets. se 


000'96z'I © 6 86.8) Vere, 0) 6 


6 ‘ ; 
000 669 2 O00'SOPT ccttttt 


000'098°S 
SUOISI[OY IIyIO eRe 
000 Tre 000 Ire 
000°0I1Z 
SEO SOT 000'9SS 
000°80¢'Z 000°ZES 
000°S00'T 
sueiysiays 000'Z1S 
000'TTZ'¢ 000'669'Z 
1210.1, 


000‘880‘T 000‘80S Aen ay Cer men ier 


a) ‘eo \0 0) 6 00 (ee © 6 6 6 ce © 6 © © © © 16 6 


oe: ue hel el eee is te MOE bist he One [810 L, 

SE OLS .¢ Miter a o/h 'ehe) .e . . eee S, ote (eal. Cae. el aiedie Gui eiis. so 6's eke es, Orn Ss C8 6, 6 6 ele vere, ote eIIIIUY uy 
BNO) 01) O) 10. 6, "88a we aks Ole ot) ie were gat etal a) agelie sve aa (6 Site. as ye) 0 81-6) "hile > sme eIpUyT pue ydAB YT ul ‘adoin’y uy 
Ciao Semele. o 6) He he eve ©) os 62 eycey ee Sing ce) 8) ey at a aah er ele Wald «ee em raie, je snseoned oy} ul pue eISSNYy uy 


adoiny ul Aayiny, Ul pue s[dourjuejsuod uy 
:SUOISIY JUeWSIG IIOP UT 


OZ 


me Sar eee A es ae ere, Hits re NE ee Ted see) eIsiag Uy 
Fe oitt ofa sagen tet Nats tha enna Saas SI EY AERC UE AT POR IP, 3 ---snsvoned ay} Jo suOISer JayI0 ay, 
Sie Pee yetore tana eee oP OO I i MPL Se OP rere: tre eISY YSIYINI, JO suorBer rayI0 oyT, 
:PIUDWIVY JO SUOIS3Y snonsi}u0dg 
Rie ERA meta ented tr en 5 atte ane ca se ee aR ar PR eg EAN OE ren oe ie “+ vruaury uersvones 
nA er re opr ae MR eRe OE PIE Bree SI ation ace Fee S, on Fo sam on rac tise eIUaWIY YSN, 
:BIUSUIV UT 
PI6[ TF suetusmayy fo saquinny [e307 
000'220°2 000'°88Z'¢ 
000°8¢ onosoe SP eat eer Se ee er 919 ‘sipizax ‘sezez ‘sayoeq-[izry 
O000IZ te pine pps nha yet 38 “+95 +919 ‘sqery ‘suersseomy ‘sezey 
000‘SZ O00Z8p ttt shy ie: ater ome Bs A Ners. oee Ph aeske sates sueWIOyIN], pue spany 
O00 fC een Te ye aa Oe Ce RTE A eB eerie Ne bare BY ean - sree yz, 
00°19 O00'SP6 2 MU ee rN Rn hs Peak Wes ont hls aR ates see) syny. 
000‘S9 O00 2th er ee ee eee 939 ‘suRLIOJsaN ‘suvissny ‘syaar5 
000°96z'T OOOSORT 0 ttt Rs he cone Chadis hee Sd Ras dea hte eee SsueIUdWIy 
eIUsWIV eIuUsWIY 
ueIseones) ysryany, 


VI6[ UW elueWAIY jo uoijzepndog aL 


‘yUOIZ Snseonedy) oY} UO UsIeduIeD YSIyIn], 94} JO dsudYOS dy} Jo jIed 
jedroutid oy} sem YoryM ‘snsevonedy 9y} JO SivjIe][ Jo suoL[iw ey} YYWM UOTJOUNE e yoo 0} sYIn J, 9Y4} OF 
a[qissodul jr apeul ing ‘ourjso[eq ul AulIVy YSIIg 2Y} JO ssadons 94} 0} pojnqisjuOD ApJOoIIpUi pue erIUIejodosay Ut 
Awiy yshtig ey} Jo uorrsod 9y} A[UO Jou paAes sny} pue ‘syJUOUT UdAIS IO} AWIV YSIYIN[L 24} WYSNoZ yYyoryM ‘suoIsI] 


Jga}UN[OA PoZIUeSIO SULIUSWIY ‘/T6T JO [[eY OY} Ul AWAY ULISsNY 94} JO UMOP-yeaIq 94} BuIMOTIOY "jUOIZ Jey} UO SWIe ULISSNy 9} 


JO Sass90ons oY} s[qQISSod spel Jo}e] pue “p[oT Ul JoJSVSIP Ule}199 WOIZ JUOIZ SNSeONeD URISSNY oy} podaAvS ‘AuOUIT}sa} YsIyIn], pue uvissny 
0} SUIps1od9e “YOM S}UIsSUT}UOD J29jUNI[OA Pastel SUBIUDIIW ‘AULIW UPISSNY oY} 0} PoyNqisjUOD suRIUSWIY UvISsSnyY USUI QOO‘OOT IaAO0 0} uoT}Ippe uy 


‘t16l “MHAINHAON NI SASVONVO AHL NI SYAALINNIOA NVINAWUV AO NOVIVILVE GCNODYS AHL AO AAVIS AHL 





sisaeee: 


RE ap. 






©: een a eee Risener So agrtae ARE 


anna isis Reeegeiece nti capo) 


‘lofey pue Jour elusuIy jo sjied utej199 pue 
jo uoednos0 Ul MOU dale _‘uoIsa7yT UFIUDUIIV,, 94} Se poajeUsIsep A|[eIOyO 
‘Aqual[[y [e1auex) 0} SuIpsosoe ‘yorym 


. 


PAISIOOP dy} UI y1ed BuIpes], & Yoo} 


AWAUdNS AHL YUACNN ‘St6l 


“AUNYITV 


‘UMHA@OLIO ANV UWA 


dW 


Wadd 


aLda 


o) 


‘elusulIy Jasse’yT 10 BII[IZ 
‘sdo01} asoyy, ‘SyxInN][ 9} I9AO A1OJIA 
‘suol[e}}eq Ysa JUOI, oUTJSa[eg IY} 0} poynqiijuo0d suUvIUOWIV 


NOD HO ANVWIKOO 


NI UNILSHIV 


d NI LHONOA OHM SUA 


ALN1VIO 


A NVINGYI 


rds SF 


TAV 





Press Bureau, The American Committee for the Independence of Armenia 
One Madison Avenue, New York 












% + 
sive 
Cat” 


Se 
{ b 








‘ 
® 
P= 


Lar 


a 


ly eos 
arte Ae 








i) 
d 5 
(ea 
nh ij 
f ! 
i 
' 
i 
1 
| 
wy 
-} 
e / 
| 
/ 
' 
4 
t 
i 
; 
2 aN E 
r] ¢ a 





UNA 
3 0112 037935100 





